P’ \

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

L A

___

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll
«ff-3., ,5 129: . .1
|-__ '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative AotiorVEqual Opportunity Institution
cmmud

 

 

TWO WORLDS OF SCIENCE: AN EXAMINATION
OF AN ENRICHED AND A GENERAL

SCIENCE CLASS

By

Keith McElroy

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1993

ABSTRACT

THE WORLDS OF SCIENCE: AN EXAMINATION
OF AN ENRICHED AND A GENERAL
SCIENCE CLASS

By

Keith McElroy

This is a case study of an enriched and a general science class
taught by the same teacher. The study describes the differential
treatment of the two classes as a consequence of ability grouping
the students. It does this by characterizing the nature of the
academic work done by the students as well as the development of the
classroom climate and student attitudes in the two classes. The
findings shows that in the enriched class a supportive and nurturing
climate developed, while in the general class an increasingly
antagonistic climate developed with the development of a group of
students becoming alienated from the teacher and the subject matter.
In addition, the social structure created by the students in the
general science class interacted with the school's placement
practices in ways that created unintended consequences. Social

bonding theory provides a theoretical perspective that yields

 

Keith McElroy

insight into why these unintended consequences developed and points
towards possible ways in which a larger percentage of science

classrooms can achieve supportive and nurturing climates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have made the writing of this dissertation not only
possible, but exciting and rewarding. I am deeply grateful to them
all.

I would like to extend a special thanks to my dissertation
director, Edward Smith, for all the guidance and support he has
given me over the past years.

To the rest of my committee-~James Gallagher, committee
chairperson; Albert Cafagna; and Douglas Campbell, I extend my
thanks for their support and help in bringing this work to a
successful close.

And to Barbara Reeves who performed the tedious but crucial
task of editing and formatting my dissertation and Cindy Erickson

Davis who typed many charts and tables, I extend my sincere thanks.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What the Study Is About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why the Study Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CHAPTER II: RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Community . . . . .y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The Target Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Entry Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CHAPTER IV: EXPLORING THE TWO WORLDS 0F
SEVENTH GRADE SCIENCE AT LORAN . . . . . . 28
Overview of Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
How This Study Began . . . . . . . . . . 28
Comparison of Enriched and General
Science Classes . . . . . . . . 32
Observable Differences Between the
~ Enriched and General ,
Science Classes . . . . . . . . . 33
Differences in Perceptions Held
by Staff Members . . . . . . . . . . 35
Introduction of Target Students . . . . . . . 41
The Development of Spatial
Arrangements Between
Social Groups and Further
Evidence that the Enriched
and General Science Classes
Were Different . . . . . . . . . . . Ah

 

Academic Work of Mr. Johnson's
Enriched and General
Science Classes

The Leaf Collection Project

Keeping the Two Classes in Synchronization .

The Science Camp .

The Atmosphere . .

Students' Attitudes Toward Their
Science Class

Summary of Chapter IV

The Dilemma . .

CHAPTER V: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETATION:
SOCIAL BONDING THEORY

CHAPTER VI: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY, SUMMARY
OF THE FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Overview of the Study .

Summary of the Findings . .
Interpretation in Terms of Social
Bonding Theory.
Recommendations . . . . .
Educational Importance

APPENDICES .

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

vi

54
63
72
76
90

104

122
125

135

139

139
140

143
153
161

163

186

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Wh t the tud Is about

There has been an ever-growing interest in the successful
delivery of quality education to all children in our schools. This
need has been brought to the forefront by educators, politicians,
parents, and civil rights groups all over the United States.

The school in this study is trying to prepare students to meet
the needs of our highly technological society. One of its practices
is to classify students and place them separately into either
enriched or general science classes. The students are classified
according to their performance on a standardized reading achievement
test, teacher recommendations, or parental choice.

This study examines an enriched science class and a general
science class taught by the same science teacher. It describes the
teacher's treatment of the two classes by focusing on the nature of
the academic work given to the students, as well as the development
of the classroom atmosphere and students' attitudes toward their
class. Consequences enriched and general science placement have on
the students and their educators are examined, as well as how the

culture created by the students interacts with the placement

practices to create unintended consequences. More generally, this
study examines the broader issues of tracking.

Before I did this study, I informally interviewed key teachers,
counselors, and school administrators at the target school about the
school's practice of tracking students. Many of these educators
stated that their school doesn't track students; it merely sorts
students into groups that are alike in many ways which makes
teaching them easier. In fact, in one conversation, a school
administrator said rather defensively, but with considerable pride,
that the only reason why the school sorted students into groups was
because it is in the best interest of all the students to do so.

I conducted this study to better understand the consequences of
placing students into homogeneous groups and to determine whether
the school’s practice of grouping students was in the best interest
of all the students. From the informal interviews, I found that
most of the educators at this school simply believed, as that school
administrator asserted, that grouping was in the best interest of
all the students.

Several assumptions lent support to their belief. The first
was the notion that students learn better when they are grouped with
other students who are considered to be like them academically, with
those who know about the same things, who learn at the same rate.
This assumption was expressed in two ways: first, that bright
students' learning were likely to be held back if they are placed in
mixed groups and, second, that the deficiencies of slow students are

more easily remedied if they are placed in classes together. A

second assumption was that slower students develop more positive
attitudes about themselves and school when they are not placed in
groups with others who are far more capable. A third assumption was
that the placement processes used to separate students into groups
both accurately and fairly reflect past achievements and native
abilities. Part of this assumption, too, was that these placement
decisions are appropriate for future learning, either in a single
class or for whole courses of study. A fourth assumption was that
it is easier for teachers to accommodate individual differences in
homogeneous groups or that, in general, groups of similar students
are easier to teach and manage.

A much smaller group of teachers, counselors, and
administrators at this school believed that the school’s practice of
grouping students might not be in the best interest of all the
students. Several assumptions seemed to lend support to their
belief. The first was the notion that taking the brightest students
out of the general classes made the general classes harder to teach
and manage. This assumption was expressed in three ways: first,
that taking the bright kids out of the general classes left those
classes with few good student role models; second, that bright
students in a class could be utilized to help slower students
understand difficult material; and third, that the brighter students
were usually the best behaved students and, therefore, taking them
out of general classes increased the likelihood that more students
who did not know how to behave would be in general classes. A

second assumption voiced was that the placement mechanism used was

not accurate, appropriate, or fair because it usually resulted in
high proportions of white students in enriched classes and high
proportions of minority students in general classes. A third
assumption was that slower students develop more negative attitudes
about themselves and school when placed in groups that contain only
others much like themselves.

Although there were other assumptions voiced by the educators
and many educators had mixed reactions, these were the ones that I
heard most often for and against the school's grouping practices.
Overall, the majority of educators at this school found the practice
of grouping students to be a rational, common-sense solution for
teaching their diverse student population.

When I examined the research literature on ability grouping and
tracking, mixed findings appeared in relation to their educational
benefits. Ability grouping or tracking appeared not to produce the
expected gains in students' achievement (Persell, 1977). There was
a slight trend toward improving the achievement of "high ability"
groups, but that was off-set by substantial losses by average and
low groups.

Those studies, however, that indicated gains for the "higher
ability" group appeared when the content, materials, and teaching
methods were enriched for them and when they were "pushed” (Goodlad,
1960).

In general, the effects of ability grouping on self concept
were also mixed. Four studies discovered that ability grouping is

positively related to self-concept for "low ability" students, but

negatively related for "high ability" groups (Cowles, 1963; Drews,
1963; Wilcox, 1963).

Far more studies, however, report negative consequences for the
self-concept of "average" and "low ability" students (Barker Lunn
1970; Byers, 1961; Kelly, 1976; Levenson, 1972; Mann, 1960; Cakes,
1985). Reviewing numerous other studies in addition to these,
Findley and Bryan (1970b) conclude that ability grouping builds the
egos of the ”high ability" groups and reduces the self esteem of
"average" and "low ability" groups.

As for whether the tracking placement can safely be counted as
accurate or fair, the majority of the research on it was not
conclusive (Cicourel & Kitsuse, 1963; Oakes, 1985; Persell, 1977;
Rosenbaum, 1980).

I found that many research studies have shown the intended and
unintended consequences of ability grouping and tracking on
students, but rarely did they show how unintended consequences came
about. It is hoped that my research study can shed some light on
how unintended consequences on students occur as a result of sorting
students into ability groups. Sometimes a researcher immersed in a
study may find consequences of a particular practice, but finding
how those consequences came about might be more difficult to see
because of the lens the researcher uses for examination.

By using the interpretive lens, I may be able not only to find
that particular consequences of the grouping practices come about,
but also how unintended consequences come about. Just as an

outsider might help me see my role as a researcher in a public

school in a sharper perspective, so I hope this study will help
researchers, teachers, and administrators view the practice of

ability grouping in a sharper perspective.

Wh is Stud I m o tant

Presently, the United States is in the process of changing from
an industrial society to a highly technological society.
Unfortunately our educational system, science education in
particular, is presently meeting the needs of only about 20% of our
secondary students (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,
1988). The result of this is that those 20%, as adults, will be
able to help develop the technology and leadership needed in the new
highly technological society, while the rest of the adults, who will
depend on this rising technology to provide jobs and enhance their
quality of life, will be unprepared to capitalize on that
technology.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), in
1969, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, and 1989, provided sufficient data to
show a decline in science achievement for all students. Although a
comparison of the results of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth assessments showed a leveling off of the achievement decline,
this decline in national student achievement should be a major
concern for policy makers and educators alike. It might be said
that the future of U.S. technology depends upon the number of young
adults adequately prepared and motivated in high school to select

science courses in college and choose the field as a career.

Furthermore, specific segments of our population, students
residing in urban areas, demonstrated significantly lower
achievement in science than other segments of our society.
Presently, urban areas track extensively. Yet to date, students
residing in urban areas fall far behind all others in terms of
number of students enrolled in high school science courses, number
of adults employed in science related careers, and number of high
school students selecting science in college and choosing it as a
career.

The educational importance of this study is that it supports
and illustrates how this national pattern of only a small percentage
of science students preparing to capitalize on new technology is
developing in one middle school. More specifically, the study
illuminates how school placement policies can interact with the
social culture created by students and teachers in ways that further
alienate some students from science classes while nurturing other

students towards science classes thus contributing to this trend.

CHAPTER II

RELATED RESEARCH

The practice of dividing students into instructional groups on
the criterion of assumed similarity in ability is widespread. It
ranges from assigning them temporarily to separate groups within a
single classroom to setting up classes in differentiated tracks.
Students may be tracked only for various subjects or for their
entire range of school-based learning.

There has been more research on ability grouping than on most
areas of schooling. Yet, ironically, the practice has proceeded
quite apart from evidence regarding advantages and disadvantages.
The findings have had some impact on national policy in other
countries, especially Western Europe. However, in the United
States, ability grouping practices have rarely had an effect on
national policy. At the local level, it is not uncommon for schools
in the same district to differ widely in their organization of
groups and classes to deal with the realities of individual
differences among students.

The most enlightening traditional study in recent time on
ability grouping, particularly as represented in tracking, was done

by Oakes (1985). The terrain she explored, namely, what transpires

in tracked classes, has not been greatly traversed. Her distinctive
contribution was her description and discussion of the hundreds of
classes that composed the junior and senior high schools in her
sample.

Oakes' data and analyses regarding the way tracking
resegregates students in racially desegregated schools reopened my
eyes to this injustice. Minority students in her samples were found
to be over-represented in the lower tracks, as were white children
of low-income families. That is, the proportion of poor and
minority students in low-track classes was found to be substantially
greater than the proportion of poor and minority students in the
population of the schools she studied.

Oakes' findings showed that there were clear differences
between upper and lower tracks in regard to the content and quality
of instruction, teacher-student and student-student relationships,
the expectations of teachers for their students, and the affective
climate of classrooms. From her conclusions it appeared that those
students for whom the most nurtured learning would appear to be most
appropriate received the least.

Another study, by Goodlad (1983), has been described as the
most comprehensive of all studies in education recently done. The
purposes of the study were to examine how elementary, junior high,
and secondary schools interconnected with one another and to examine
how schools functioned as social institutions. For eight years, 43

researchers did trained observations of more than 1,000 classrooms

10

in 38 schools in seven sections of the United States, representing
urban, suburban, and rural areas.

When examining the practice of grouping students according to
ability, Goodlad found that ability grouping tends to limit the
opportunity for children in lower groups to keep pace with their
peers. Goodlad's findings suggest that the upper groups experience
a richer body of curricular content and that the lower groups
experience more drill and rote learning, and that the gap between
these groups of students widens each year.

Goodlad's data further revealed differences in pedagogy and
class climate. Consistently, the practices and atmosphere of the
low track classes conveyed a greater teacher reinforcement of
behaving, following rules, and conforming. Consistently, students
of low economic status and from minorities were disproportionately
represented, had a high frequency of membership in low track
classes, and had a low membership in high track classes.

Goodlad found, almost without exception, that classes not
tracked into levels but containing a heterogeneous mixture of
students achieving at all levels were more like high than low track
classes in regard to what students were studying, how teachers were
teaching, and how teachers and students were interacting in the
classroom.

A more dated but comprehensive research study that helps
explain what schools do to or for higher tracked students that

facilitates their achievement, and what schools do to or for lower

ll

tracked students that depresses their achievement, was done by
Persell (1977).

In her analysis, she recognized context and process as
important parts of education. Part of that context, she believed,
consists of prevailing ideas in education. While she admitted that
many educational ideas could be scrutinized, she chose to examine
the concept of standardized achievement testing in relation to
tracking and to analyze its validity, procedures, and consequences.
In analyzing educational outcomes, most research has looked to
racial or socioeconomic status differences to explain differential
academic achievement. Persell thought it important to examine the
problematic nature of academic achievement, since measures of
academic achievement are frequently used by the educational system
to make critical decisions.

Persell's analysis of the use of standardized achievement
testing for tracking students found evidence from numerous studies
that suggested that by virtue of their content and their
administrative procedures, standardized achievement test are
extremely inappropriate means for ascertaining the ”ability" of
lower class and minority children (Samuda, 1975; Roth, 1974; Labov,
1973; Thomas, 1973; Hawkes & Furst, 1971). Her analysis also
provided evidence that suggested that the prevalent use of
standardized achievement test scores for educational decisions has
resulted in the misclassification and mislabeling of thousands of

minority students, with the apparent additional consequences of

12

under education, lower teacher expectations, diminished self-esteem
and increased rates of dropping out (Dunn, 1968).

The other important part of education Persell recognized was
process, which consists of the educational structures of schools.
The structural feature of schools that Persell examined was ability
grouping and tracking. She did so because she believed that this
particular structural feature of schools may significantly affect
educational outcomes of students, both cognitive and affective.

In Persell's analysis of ability grouping and tracking, she was
not able to find systematic evidence about the educational processes
that occur in different tracks, but she found reason to believe that
the curricular content, type of instruction, frequency and type of
teacher-pupil interaction, amount of educational resources, and
degree of "cooling out" may tend to favor higher over lower tracks
(Lennards, 1969).

In addition, Persell saw educational ideas and structures as
mediated by individual teachers who interact with specific pupils.
Therefore, she examined the genesis, transmission, and results of
teacher expectations.

To summarize her analysis of the relationship of ability
grouping and teacher expectations, she found evidence from seven
studies that consistently showed that ability grouping is related to
teacher expectations (Williams, 1975; Keddie, 1971; Schrank, 1970;
Pidgeon, 1970; Hargreave, 1967; Flowers, 1966). These studies all
showed that teachers expected more from "higher” groups and less

from "lower“ groups, even when students have actually been randomly

13

assigned to those groups. Thus, grouping itself affects teacher
expectations, independently of ”student ability."

A recent interpretive study that helped me in my quest to make
the all-too-familiar occurrences of tracking appear strange was done
by Page (1987). Page's study focused on how teachers perceived
regular verses lower-track students, on how the teachers defined the
lower-track curriculum, and on students' reaction to the lower-track
curriculum.

The public school in Page's study had talented teachers and
academically-and-socially advantaged students. The school was
viewed by the community as a ”heavenly” place to send their
children. Faculty members, too, characterized the school as
”heavenly," voicing a shared tacit understanding of the school's
student body and its mode of operation. The school's ”heavenly"
ethos was constituted in teachers' and students' perceptions and
consequent enactments of roles and relationships, at the same time
that it shaped their views and behavior.

One would expect a public school like this, with talented
teachers, an academically-and-socially advantaged student body, and
considerable resources to deal ably and equitably with its
relatively small population of academically unsuccessful students,
to deal successfully with their lower track students. This
expectation was further bolstered because the teachers and students
in the classes were not so disadvantaged as those described in other
studies of tracking (Finley, 1984; Metz, 1978; Oakes, 1985;

Schwartz, 1981); the teachers were experienced, generally competent,

l4

and sometimes elect to teach a lower-track class; the great majority
of lower-track students, like their regular-track peers, were white
and middle class and scored on average in the third rather than the
fourth quartile on achievement tests.

However, despite these material, intellectual, and social
resources, Page's study showed that teachers distanced themselves
from the lower-track classes, lower-tracked students dropped out at
a rate that approximates that of much more disadvantaged
adolescents, and the chaos and conflict in the lower-tracked
classrooms resembled the "circus” reported in lower-track classrooms
in imperiled institutions (Metz, 1978; Schwartz, 1981). Page's
application of the interpretive approach provided insights into
students' and teachers' perspective of the lower-track curriculum
and the patterns of resolving classroom conflicts. The findings
suggested that differentiation in public schools occur, in degree
and process, much like differentiation in American society as a
whole.

Another area that became important to me as I did this study
was understanding the way relations between teachers and children
affect the development of learning environments and how classroom
climate may promote or retard learning. There is considerable
evidence that differences in classroom climate do account for
substantial differences in student learning. McDermott's (1977)
research has suggested some useful explanations for how and why
classroom relationships, one important aspect of climate, may serve

either to enhance or limit student learning.

15

McDermott reminds us that environments that most enhance
learning are those in which children are clear about what they are
to do and have enough time to complete learning tasks. McDermott
suggests that the relationships that are present in the classroom
affect both the availability of time and students' understanding of
tasks. The kinds of relationships that develop determine whether
students and teachers develop what he calls "trusting relations,"
which are relations in which both teacher and students interpret
what others in the classroom do as being "directed to the best
interests of what they are trying to do together and understand."

In classrooms where trusting relations exist, students will spend
their time and energy on learning. Where they do not exist, a great
deal of time will be spent trying to get organized and negotiating
relationships. Much of the teacher's time and energy is likely to
be devoted to establishing rewards and punishments to get students
to attend to tasks. Much of the students' time and energy is likely
to be devoted to not working and to disrupting what the teacher is
attempting to do. If McDermott is correct, his propositions go a
long way toward understanding the importance of relations between
teachers and students and their impact on learning.

McDermott's conceptualization of trusting relations and their
impact on learning seems reasonable. But how does a teacher develop
these trusting relationship so that order is achieved in the
classroom and all inhabitants of the classroom trust one another and

cooperate in the learning enterprise?

16

How order is achieved in societies is of central interest to
sociologists. Nowhere have sociologists exercised that interest
more actively than in the study of conformity and deviance among
children. Sociologists have produced several different theories.
Schools occupy a central place in recent attempts to integrate some
of those theories.

Sociologists have found that delinquent behavior (for my
purposes, disruptive behavior) results from the interaction of a
developing child with his social environment. The pathway to
delinquent behavior is influenced by experiences in the family, at
school, and in the community. Apart from prior delinquent behavior,
association with delinquent peers is the strongest predictor of
adolescent delinquent behavior (Elliott, Huizinga & Ageton, 1982;
Hirschi, 1969; Weis & Hawkins, 1981).

Although there are disagreements about how and how much school
experiences contribute to "becoming delinquent,” several assumptions
appeared warranted by the available evidence as a basis for
interventions which seek to prevent delinquent behavior. Weis &
Hawkins (1981) viewed the evolution of delinquent behavior from a
developmental perspective. From their developmental perspective,
the researchers argued that school experiences themselves are likely
to influence the extent to which a youth will develop social bonds
of attachment and commitment to conventional (socially acceptable)
activities and conventional persons. Furthermore, if the process of
developing a social bond to conventional activities and conventional

persons has been interrupted by poor school performance, or by

17

uncaring or inconsistent educators, youths are more likely to come
under the influence of peers who are in the same situation and are
also more likely to be influenced by such peers to engage in
delinquent activities (Hawkins and Weis, 1981).

This developmental view of delinquency has been integrated into
a theory of delinquency and its prevention, the social development
model (Hawkins & Weis, 1981; Weis & Hawkins, 1982). This
theoretical model seeks explicitly to serve as a basis for
delinquency prevention interventions. The researchers described
stages of development and identified intervention approaches which
would appear appropriate at each stage.

The social development theory identifies three general
conditions which appeared to be necessary in the formation of a
social bond. These conditions are opportunities for involvement,
skills, and reinforcements. The social development model of
delinquency and its prevention posits that social bonds are
developed in school when youths have the opportunity to be involved
with others in activities and interactions in these settings, when
they have the skills necessary to perform competently in the
activities and interactions of the settings, and when they
experience consistent rewards or reinforcement for their involvement
in those activities and settings. Thus, it suggests that when
youths experience opportunities for involvement in the conventional
activities, when they are given the opportunities to develop the
requisite social, cognitive and behavioral skills to perform as

expected in those activities, and when they are rewarded

18

consistently for adequate performance of those activities, they will
develop a bond of attachment to subsequent conventional activities,
a commitment towards conventional persons, and belief in the school.
The formation of social bonds to school will decrease the likelihood
that youths will develop attachments to delinquent peers. When
these three conditions are not present in the school, a bond to
school is not likely to develop. Thus, the likelihood that youths
will develop attachments to delinquent peers is increasing, and,
apart from prior delinquent behavior, association with delinquent
peers is the strongest predictor of adolescent delinquent behavior.
In this study the social development model was used to explain
the development of social bonds between the students in the two
science classes and their teacher. I also used this model to
explain how the students' science classroom experiences contributed
to the process of "becoming disruptive." I will be seeking to
identify the combined and, where possible, individual conditions; to
see the extent to which these conditions led to increased
opportunities, skills, and reward; the extent to which these
conditions generated increased social bonding to school and
conventional persons; and the extent to which these conditions were

successful in reducing disruptive behavior in the science classroom.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

W

Loran is a metropolitan city located in the center of the
state. It is an industrial center and has a population of about
150,000. The south side of the city is the most heavily populated,
as it lies closest to the main automobile factories. Here homes
tend to be modest, on small lots, and mostly 20 to 30 years old.
Many of the homes tend to be the one-story ranch types. The school
in this study is located on the southwest side of the city in an
area characterized as ”blue collar." In using the term blue collar,
I am referring to students born into families whose parents worked
in automobile-related factories. To the east of the city lies
another major residential area, with a character somewhat different
from the residential area to the south.~ The eastern area tends to
be less blue collar in nature, partly because of the university
located near this area.

Politically, voters in this city have never been known to favor
candidates supporting social change; rather, they favor more
mainstream, ”bread and butter" issues such as jobs. In general, the

city is thought to be somewhat conservative, although not of the

19

20

extreme variety. Seekers of public office, therefore, have
emphasized the traditional issues of the working person and
commercial and industrial growth that would bring jobs into the

area .

Michael

Loran Middle School opened in 1963. Located on a generous
portion of property (23.44 acres) in the populated southwest side of
the city of Loran, it serves all middle school students
(approximately 1,000) who live in the southwest corner of the city,
between by the city's two main freeways. Loran Middle School is
surrounded by residential homes. The grounds surrounding the school
are well kept, and the building itself is in top-notch condition,
considering its age and the number of students who daily scurry
through the halls, slam lockers, flush toilets, eat in the
cafeteria, and sit (and sometimes write) on desks within the
classrooms.

The floor plan of the building, which is a two-story structure,
was conducted by a special committee of citizen and teachers. Their
ideas were incorporated into the functional design rendered by the
architects and the school administration. Materials in the building
were selected for easy, economical maintenance and for their durable
qualities. The floor plan allows hallway traffic to flow easily,
and most corridors are double-loading. The administration and

(:ounseling area is located near the main entrance to the building.

21

Location of special areas was planned to make maximum use of
hallways and entrance ways and also to control sound in the building
from the gymnasium, shop areas, cafeteria, and music rooms.
Facilities are provided in this building for a middle school
curriculum appropriate to the present, and the design is
sufficiently flexible to allow curriculum change in the future.
Special instructional equipment is included for particular programs
such as foreign language, industrial arts, homemaking, music, art,
audio-visual instruction, and science. Ample general classroom
space is available for instruction not requiring special equipment.

To understand Loran Middle School, one must understand the
principal, Mr. Bird. He has been principal since 1981. Before that
he had been a principal at one of the school district's other middle
schools and, before that, an assistant principal at one of the
school district's high schools. He has also been a counselor and a
biology teacher. He attended college at West State College where he
received a Bachelor of Science degree. He then attended State
University for his Master of Arts degree and did further graduate
work in administration and education. All in all, Mr. Bird has been
in teaching and school administration for 22 years.

The staff describes Mr. Bird as an easy-going person, although
there are time when they feel that he is direct and imposing. His
staff and the students call him ”Mr. Bird,” perhaps symbolizing the
distance he tries to keep between them and him.

Mr. Bird does not like to make all major decisions himself.

IEnstead, he stresses staff and administration consensus in making

22

major decisions. Mr. Bird does try to stay informed about
everything that goes on in the school. He goes to as many
departmental meetings as he can. In fact, Mr. Bird stressed two key
signs of a well-run school are good discipline and being aware of
what is going on in the classrooms.

Almost every day, one can find Mr. Bird in the lunchroom or in
the hallways directing students. Also before school and after
school, he is in front of the school directing students and watching
their general conduct as they unload from and load on to buses.

Mr. Bird doesn't exactly welcome change, but he is not a person
who fights change either. He knows that change is inevitable and so
'tries to keep aware of current trends so that he can direct change
in a positive manner. Mr. Bird rarely interfered in the day-to-day
activities of teachers. His opinion was that teachers should be
regarded as professionals and be given the autonomy of a
professional to make instructional decisions within their own
classrooms. Most teachers conceded that Mr. Bird ran an efficient
school that normally supported change and the teacher's best
interest. In these respects, then, Mr. Bird was looked upon as a
good administrator.

About 60 teachers are under Mr. Bird's supervision. The
teaching population could best be characterized as being stable and
local in origin. The majority of these teachers do not live in the
city per se; they do live in the greater Loran area. The average
teacher has been teaching at Loran for 15 to 20 years. Half of the

staff had received their Bachelor's degrees from State University

23

and the other half from a local, privately-supported college outside
the area, yet still within the state.

Mr. Bird spoke highly of his faculty as a whole, acknowledging
that many of them were "traditional teachers." This pattern of
teaching was somewhat strange to me, since a large university with
an innovative instructional program was located within ten miles of
the school. In fact, I expected to find some things being done
differently from time to time here, but by in large I found that the

school operated very much like the middle school I had attended.

The Iarget Teacher

Mr. Johnson is an average-sized man in his late fifties,
rapidly approaching retirement age. He has been teaching for 30
years and has been employed at Loran since 1964. He has taught
mainly science-related courses during that time. Mr. Johnson's
major field of study as an undergraduate was biological science.
He, too, attended State University where he earned a Bachelor of
Science degree in biology.

Mr. Johnson's daily teaching routine included teaching two
enriched science classes and two general science classes. He is
also the department chairperson, which gives him a lot of other
responsibilities besides teaching. He is on numerous committees and
is an active member of the school's improvement team. In addition,
.Miu Johnson has worked with members of the University for about ten
)nears. The work includes having student teachers come to his

cilassroom for about a week for some valuable experience

24

micro-teaching. Obviously, Mr. Johnson is a very busy but dedicated
teacher who readily admits that around March or April, he starts to
get burned out. Yet in all the conversations I have had with him, I
could tell he really enjoys his work.

Mr. Johnson is regarded highly by his peers as an excellent
teacher. His approach to teaching science is hands-on for the most
part. He tries to vary the activities that he gives students so
they don't get bored; for example, one day he might have them work
on a hands-on laboratory project, the next day he might take them to
the library to work on a research project, the next day he might
have them work out of their science book, and so on. Mr. Johnson
also believes in giving students extra credit, but he is hesitant to

give it to students who he feels can't take the extra work.

E t e o iat o s

Gaining access to Loran was really not difficult because my
academic advisor has done work there for the last ten years. He
negotiated my first visit, and I negotiated subsequent visits.
Initially, my academic advisor introduced me to Mr. Bird and
requested that I be allowed to do my research study there. Mr. Bird
gave me his permission but he made three demands. First, I had to
get the permission of the Loran School Board. Second, I had to get
the permission of the teacher I was going to work with; and third,
teachers, students, and parents should be told about the study

laefore I started. I agreed, and after that, I discussed my plans

25

with Mr. Johnson who agreed to give me access to his classroom and
his students.

A week later I wrote a letter to the Loran School Board,
requesting permission to do the study. They asked me to fill out a
form and submit a copy of my research proposal to them, which I did.
Within a week's time, they gave me a positive response. I also
submitted a copy of my research proposal to the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects for their approval, which was
granted.

Having obtained access to the school, I had no problem getting
access to the students. Mr. Johnson simply introduced me, after
which I explained my purpose for being there and the scope of the
study. I then handed out permission slips which the students and
their parents signed and returned to me. The students and their
parents were very cooperative; I had no problem with them at all.
However, one thing that I sensed was school personnel appearing
defensive. Many times office secretaries gave me a look that
appeared to say to me, you're invading my space. On reflection, I
think this might have been because they were not used to having a
stranger in their school building with unlimited access to certain
things. What I mean here is that Mr. Bird and Mr. Johnson gave me
permission to any documents except ones that contained confidential
information about the staff. This meant that many times I was
forced to be in the school secretary's office, and secretaries can

be very protective of files.

26

I negotiated access to observe two classes with Mr. Johnson.
One class was a seventh-grade enriched science class and the other
was a seventh-grade general science class. In order to be in the
enriched science class, students had to share some common
characteristics: they scored 901 or above on the reading part of the
Stanford Achievement Test, or they were recommended by their
sixth-grade science teacher to this class, or their parents insisted
that they be placed in this class, although admittance to this class
was rarely done by parental insistence alone. The general science
students consisted of all the other students not fitting the

aforementioned requirements.

Data Collectign

The site of the study was a racially, ethically, and
linguistically mixed Midwestern, inner city, public middle school.
The two science classes under investigation were observed in their
natural setting for one year.

This study is in the qualitative, case study tradition.
Central to such studies is the goal of understanding the activities
and perspectives of the participants in context with the meanings
they constructed. Therefore, this research asked fundamentally
different sorts of questions than those asked by standard
statistical research on teaching and learning. Questions such as,
”What are the conditions of meaning that students and educators

czreate together?” Through this interpretive point of view, I hoped

27

to gain insight into both the effects of the differential placement
to science classes and how those effects came about.

In this study participant-observation fieldnotes were used to
record what was happening in the setting. Interviews of
participating students and their parents, teachers, and
administrators were conducted on a timely basis. Finally, documents
of varying sorts and, to a lesser degree, questionnaires about
classroom life were administered to many participating students.
All these items were analyzed and used to interpret the contrast
that existed between the two science classes. This combination of
qualitative and quantitative data led to greater confidence in the
findings and to richer insights into classroom life than would have
been possible using either data source alone.

Also, a unique methodology was used to ensure accuracy of
sequences of events and to ensure the target teachers' perspective
was included in the study. The target teacher and I sat down and
analyzed my fieldnotes of particular events. The target teacher
then helped me fill in any missing gaps in those sequences of
events. Finally, the target teacher was given the opportunity to
write a section that discussed his perspectives and perceptions of
the findings of the study. I felt that this was important to
include in order to be sure the target teacher's sense of dilemma
about these situations is accurately portrayed and to show how

teachers are struggling with this practice of ability grouping.

CHAPTER IV

EXPLORING THE TWO WORLDS OF
SEVENTH GRADE SCIENCE AT LORAN

Overview of Chapter

This chapter will examine some of the key differences between
the enriched and general science class that were present at the
onset, and that developed over time. A major part of that will be
the relationship that developed between the teacher and the students
in these two science class, and the intra-class culture that
developed between the students within each individual class. How
the school personnel perceived the two classes, and what actually
happened in the two classes that contributed to the personnel having
to develop strategies for handling certain students will also be

illuminated.

.flow This Study Began

The typical day in Mr. Johnson's enriched science classroom
begins with a loud, high-pitched electronic bell that screams
throughout his classroom. It signals time for class to begin. The
class starts as students wait while Mr. Johnson takes attendance and
then gives the instructions for the day. Following these

instructions, the class settles down, and students begin the work

28

29

which Mr. Johnson has planned for that period. The bell rings again
at the end of the 55-minute period, and these students flood into
the halls en route to their next class. Within five minutes a group
of general science students enters Mr. Johnson’s classroom, ready to
start their science class, and the process repeats itself. To an
observer, the students' class time seems fairly similar. But what
is beneath this veneer? We shall soon find out when we begin our
journey into the two worlds of science at Loran. Before we begin
this journey let me back up a bit and give some background as to why
I asked the question, "What is beneath this veneer?" The last 11
days of the previous year, I had the opportunity to observe another
Loran science teacher, Mr. Thomas, in his enriched and general

. science classes. As a result of that opportunity, I did a pilot
study for this dissertation. Reflecting back to that pilot study,
this is how it began and what I concluded.

It was the last few weeks of the school year and my first visit
to Mr. Thomas' classroom. I arrived 35 minutes before the start of
Mr. Thomas' first hour enriched science class. As I walked in the
doorway of Mr. Thomas' classroom, I had no idea of what was in store
for me. I quickly surveyed his room. It was like any other science
room I had ever been in. It had desks in the front, laboratory
tables in the back, a couple of chalkboards and a few bulletin
boards. Mr. Thomas' desk sat in the front of the room off to the
side. In the rear of the room, there was a demonstration lab table

and a door that led into a smaller back room.

30

As I walked into the classroom, I was greeted by four other
teachers standing in the back room. They were drinking coffee and
talking to each other. One of the teachers was Mr. Thomas. He
introduced me to the other teachers and briefly explained my purpose
for being there. The other teachers began making humorous remarks
about my "soon to have" relationship with Mr. Thomas and his
students. One of the remarks came from Mr. Johnson, another seventh
grade science teacher. In a teasing manner, Mr. Johnson said to me
with a chuckle, "You'll have a good time sitting in on Mr. Thomas'
classes. Yeah, his enriched classes are all right, but watch out
for his general classes; he has got some real interesting characters
in those classes.”

Mr. Thomas smiled and nodded his head in agreement, his eyes
seemingly confirming the story, ”You're right about that. In my
enriched classes, I've got some real good kids. But, I don't
believe that a lot of the kids in my general classes are really with
it,” Mr. Thomas said with a worried look on his face. He turned to
me, put his hand on my shoulder, and said, "Maybe that will be a
place you'll be able to help me with?" I nodded my head yes, but
I'm sure my face showed my reluctance to this challenge.

Mr. Johnson then volunteered, "And if you don’t see enough in
Mr. Thomas' classes, then come to my classroom sixth hour; you'll
see some more interesting things." Mr. Johnson's gaze shifted from
me to Mr. Thomas. He continued, "The kids in that class are just
terrible. I have five special education students and fifteen Title

III students. You know I have Eddie in that class?" Mr. Thomas

31

shook his head sympathetically. Knowing that I wouldn't know what
Mr. Johnson meant by this last statement, Mr. Thomas leaned towards
me and whispered, "Eddie is a kid that has been age-promoted; he'll
be driving to school next year” (Fieldnotes 5/27/89).

Over those next 11 days, I observed all of Mr. Thomas’ enriched
and general science classes. From what I could tell, things looked
complex but well orchestrated. All of Mr. Thomas' classes appeared
to go through the same identical routine steps every day. Students
listened to lectures and participated in discussions, they read
chapters in their textbooks and answered questions at the end of
some chapters, and they filled out worksheets and puzzles. Even the
occasional confusion seemed to be routine and identical. With only
slight variations, events in Mr. Thomas' seventh grade science
classes over that period appeared the same for every science class.
But were they? Maybe yes, maybe no; I wasn't sure.

From the findings of my pilot study I concluded that there were
some observable differences between the enriched and general science
classes. There was a difference in the racial compositions of the
enriched science classes versus the general science classes. There
was a difference in the dress of many of the students in the
enriched science classes versus the students in the general science
classes, and there was a difference in the behavior of many of the
students in the enriched science classes versus the general science
classes. Although none of these differences appeared significant,
over the summer that followed I kept thinking about my observations

of Mr. Thomas' classrooms. I felt that I wasn't there long enough

32

to really understand what was going on there; however, my
observations, along with the four science teachers' comments, really
set the stage for this present study. I wondered what the four
science teachers' comments really meant. Were there covert
differences between enriched science classes and general science
classes as well as the observable differences I had found? Were the
observable differences I found one-time occurrence or could I find
the same overt differences next year?

That following school year I would be starting my year-long
dissertation study. Luckily, I was able to make arrangements with
Mr. Johnson to observe his third-hour enriched science class and his
fourth-hour general science class for the entire school year.
Hopefully, I would be able to see what was going on there. Then I
could answer the question, "What is beneath this veneer?"

My questions for this study are the following: ”Are there
differences in the experiences of an enriched science class student
versus a general science class student? And if there are
differences in their experiences, what are those differences? How
are those differences perceived by the students, the teacher, and
perhaps by others in the school environment? How do those
differences play themselves out in the lives of the students? What

is the significance of those differences?"

m a so 0 Enriched and General Science Classes
In this section several differences between the enriched and

general science class will be illuminated by comparing the two

33

science classes. These differences will range from observable
differences between the two classes, to un-observable differences
that can only be seen by careful observation of the two classes over
time. The teacher's strategies for negating some of these

difference and his sense of dilemma will also be illuminated.

Qbservable Differences Between the
Enriched and General Science Classes

 

The next school year, Mr. Johnson taught both a third hour
enriched science class and a fourth hour general science class. As
I began my observations of Mr. Johnson's classes that year, I kept
the findings from my pilot study and the four teachers' comments
firmly in my mind. Within a short time, I was able to see the same
observable differences between the two classes that I had seen in my
pilot study. The most overt difference I noticed was in the racial
composition of the two classes. The enriched science class
contained 30 students, of which 21 were white, 8 were black, and l
was Asian. The number of students in the general science class, on
the other hand, appeared to vary from week to week because students
were continually being added or dropped from the class list. The
first week of class there were 30 students of which 21 were black, 6
were white, 2 were Hispanic, and 1 was Asian. I have to admit,
because of these unequal proportions of minority students in Mr.
Johnson's enriched and general science classes, I began to have ill
feelings about the school's policy of having one class labeled
enriched and the other labeled general. Being a minority myself, I

felt that this was just another case of racial injustice. In a

34

study that I had read concerning ability grouping, minority students
were found to be in disproportionately large percentages in the
lower groups (Oakes, 1985). This haunted me constantly over the
next few visits to Mr. Johnson's classroom. However, after awhile,
with the help of my research advisor, I was able to step back and
re-evaluate my feeling. I decided to expand my analysis and look
for other differences between the two science classes.

The next difference appeared to be in the personal appearance
of the students in the two classes. The students in the enriched
science class for the most part dressed conservatively. For
example, in the enriched class it was common to see boys in blue
jeans and sport shirts and girls in designer jeans and blouses with
a few in dresses. Contrast this with the dress of many of the
students in the general science class. In the general class it was
common to see boys and girls in T-shirts and sweat pants. Although
on occasion jeans and sport shirts were worn by a few of the boys in
the general class, and designer jeans and dresses were worn by a few
of the girls in the general class, this mode of dress was not that
common. Street jackets and coats were also worn by a few members of
the general class, especially by black male students. This was
noteworthy because I found out later that wearing a street jacket or
coat while in class was against the rules of the school, a rule that
Mr. Johnson rarely enforced because he felt that he received little
backing for enforcing it from the school administrators.

When I tried to make sense of this difference in personal

appearance of the students in the two classes, two ideas came to

 

35

mind. The differences might relate to the socioeconomic status of
the students or they might simply be personal preferences that the
students had for dress. Unfortunately, my data does not allow me to

resolve this issue.

Diffgfenceg in Perceptions Held by Staff Members

Another difference between the students in the enriched science
class and the students in the general science class appeared to be
related to how school staff members thought about the students'
academic capabilities. Mr. Johnson alluded to this difference when
he said to me, ”My third hour enriched science class is made up of
students who are among the best in the school. Now my fourth hour
general science class; they're a different story. Many of them
can't read” (Fieldnotes 9/15/89). I would find out soon that other
members of the schools' staff shared this same perception.

It was just a few weeks into the new school year. As I sat in
Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science class, hoping for
something interesting to happen, I observed a female staff member
enter the room. I found out later that she was one of the assistant
principals at Loran. She came into the classroom, spoke briefly to
Mr. Johnson, then announced to the class, ”As many of you know, I'm
Ms. Powell. This year I'm in charge of the ’Student of the Week
Program.’ How many of you know what the Student of the Week Program
is?”

Almost all of the student in the class raised their arms and

waved their hands. Ms. Powell paused for a moment and the room got

36

deathly quiet. Ms. Powell smiled and said, "Oh, I can see, this is
a special class, a class that realizes the importance of hard work."
As Ms. Powell spoke many of the students' head gestures showed their
agreement with her statements, "How many students here have already
been student of the week?" Ms. Powell asked. Seventeen of the
students raised their hands. I was really surprised and so was Ms.
Powell. She asked, "This is an enriched class isn't it?" The
students responded by saying, ”Yes" in unison. Ms. Powell nodded
her head, smiled and said, "I see."

Ms. Powell then introduced Erin, a student in Mr. Johnson's
third hour class, as the 'Student of the Week' and read a letter
about Erin's accomplishments. Afterwards, the class gave Erin a big
round of applause. Ms. Powell said to the class, ”If any of you
students would like to start a folder with things such as letters of
recommendation, student of the week awards, and other things that
show that you are an outstanding student, see me and I will help you
with that. Remember, if you start a folder, it may help you get a
scholarship to college later on down the road." Ms. Powell thanked
Mr. Johnson and the class and then exited (Fieldnotes 9/20/89).

As I sat in Mr. Johnson's class that day, it struck me how Ms.
Powell and Mr. Johnson felt about these students and their academic
capabilities. These educators appeared to define the students in
terms of the group they were in (enriched verses general). When I
asked Mr. Johnson about the assumption I had made he agreed with it.

Although be included that as much as possible, he also defined the

37

students in terms of what they did in his class. This made me

wonder if this view was also shared by other staff members as well?
To find out, I had interviews with a few key educators at

Loran. One of the educators interviewed was Mr. Bird, the school's

principal. Below is an excerpt of that interview.

R: So do your enriched students seem to have more
success in science than your general science
students?

B: Well the enriched students first of all are the
top. They are the ones with the test scores in
the 90's on the Stanford Achievement tests. 80
you are talking about the cream of the crop. They
typically do well in everything. Math, reading,
science.

R: A student becomes an enriched science student by
just the test?

8: Yeah that is probably the main factor that we use.
It is also based on teacher recommendations, but
typically we use the reading test score and
teacher recommendations, but first and foremost I
would say the reading test score to determine
whether. We don't have enriched science at the
sixth grade level, so it really based on their
science grade in sixth-grade and their reading
test score.

R: If a parent came in and strongly wanted their kid
to go into enriched, no matter what the score was,
then what?

B: It has happened infrequently. We do know this
too, that sometimes kids don't test well, but the
parent does have the final say as to whether or
not the kid is placed in enriched science.

R: What have parents said about their kid being in
enriched or general science classes?

B: Some parents really lobby hard to get their kids
in enriched, sometimes their kid is in enriched
and the parents will come in and say "I would
rather have my kid go back to regular class." I
think that the reason that we continue to have
enriched classes, though when we changed over to a

R:

B:

38

middle school the recommendations of the committee
setting up these schools was that we do away with
enriched classes. We did have a group of parents
who lobbied intensely to make sure that all the
middle schools have enriched classes.

Can you tell me a little more about that?

Well, that is kind of a status symbol among some
parents. If you put the letter "E" on it for
enriched as opposed to a regular class. Just like
in High School, if the kid is taking advance
placement courses rather than a regular course,
there is a certain added status to it. We have
them because parents are a big component of the
school community and we ought to take into
consideration their wishes.

So, how about the Loran School Board, did they say
have it or don't have it, or is that a decision
that they make?

The School Board itself was not involved in the
initial recommendation in terms of the choice.

So that is something that was local to this
school?

Yea, because we were the first school to become a
middle school. So in that sense it was but since
the other middle schools all have enriched classes
so it is city wide.

Could you explain more about how the parents got
together and lobbied for enriched classes?

When the recommendation became that there wouldn't
be enriched classes, a group of parents got
together and went to the Superintendent and said
that they wanted to have enriched classes, and he
in conference with the group and made a decision
and enriched classed are here.

How long ago was that?

About 1983 I think (Interview conducted 4/11/90).

As you can see from this interview, Mr. Bird appears to define

the students in his middle school in terms of the classes they are

in (enriched verses general). He perceives the enriched students as

39

the cream of the crop. He feels this way because of the scores
certain students were able to achieve on a standardized reading
achievement test, even though he acknowledges that some students
might not test well. It also appears that one reason why this
school has continued the practice of providing both enriched and
general classes, despite the recommendations of the committee
setting up these schools to do away with enriched classes, was
because a influential group of parents lobbied for it and the
Superintendent of this school considered their request and decided
in their favor in an attempt to show that parents are a big
component of the school community.

Another educator that I interviewed was Mr. Jordan, one of the
schools' counselors. Below is an excerpt from that interview.

R: One day I was in Mr. Johnson' enriched classroom
and one of the assistant principals came into the
classroom to speak to the students. One of the
comments that the assistant principal made was,
"Oh, I can see, this is a special class, a class
that realizes the importance of hard work. This
is an enriched class isn't it?" My question to
you is; Is there a message sent to enriched
science students by the administration, teachers,
or counselors that is different from the message
that is sent to general science students?

J: Not on purpose, but I think the message is clear.
Research has proven that expectations of
youngsters are altered greatly by perceptions of
adults in the school. That is part of the whole
question; Are these enriched classes a good thing?
Maybe they are not, primarily because of the
messages we are sending to kids. We expect less
from them because they are in a general class and
indeed some of those situations happen here. In
enriched classes you see experiments going on.
You see kids out there doing things because they
are "responsible.” They can take care of
equipment. They work on their own. You go to a
general class and maybe a third of those kids at

40

least come from a dysfunctional home situation or
a situation in which they haven't learned self
discipline. They haven't learned self control.
Try to do an experiment with those youngsters and
it is different from a teacher's point of view.
The questions becomes; can those kids in general
classes be taught to be responsible in those
situations? There are some kids that cannot.

Now, if you had those enriched kids or what we
call the talented youngsters back in the classes
with everybody else, would they influence the
atmosphere of that class (through role models or
peer pressure), such that the other youngsters
would learn from them? Some research suggest very
much that they could (Interview conducted 5/11/90)

Mr. Bird's interview provides evidence that seemed to suggest
that other educators, other than Mr. Johnson and Ms. Powell, share
this perception about certain groups' academic and behavioral
capabilities. These educators appeared to define the students in
terms of the group they were in (enriched verses general).

Mr. Jordan's interview appears to be critical of placing
students in academic categories such as enriched and general. He
calls into question the merit of having enrichment classes,
primarily because of the messages it sends to students. He admits
that educators at Loran tend to expect less from students in general
classes and that this may have a pronounced effect on these
students. He wonders if having enriched kids or what we call the
talented youngsters back in the classes with everybody else, could
influence the atmosphere of that class (through role models or peer
pressure), such that youngsters could learn from each other?

This controversy raised an interesting question in my mind.

The question of whether the students in the two science classes were

really different at all, or were they just perceived by their

41

educators to be different? At this point I couldn't answer this
question. In addition, I wondered about the students who didn't fit
nicely into the categories set up by the their educators. What are

the consequences for these students?

Introduction of Target Sfudents

I was not surprised that Erin had been chosen student of the
week. By what I had seen, she was very articulate and appeared very
academically oriented. She seemed involved in every lesson,
frequently asking relevant questions; and when called upon by Mr.
Johnson, she usually responded with intelligent answers.

Erin's closest companions in the class were Concetta and
Theresa. Concetta was very articulate, too, and, from what I could
tell, very academically oriented. She always appeared to do more
than what was expected of her in class. Theresa, on the other hand,
was more social, although she, too, appeared very academically
oriented. I came to see Erin, Concetta, and Theresa as typical
examples of the students in Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched
science class; thus, they became members of my target group for this
class.

I also felt it useful to include Marty as a target student for
this class. He represented a contrast between the typical enriched
science student model that Erin, Concetta, and Theresa represented.
Marty was more outgoing than either Erin or Concetta and did not
always participate in class work as actively as did Erin, Concetta,

or Theresa. He appeared content to ”just get by."

42

In Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour general science class, Dan was one
of the more popular boys. Dan appeared to be sort of the
class-clown type. He didn't appear to be academically oriented much
of the time, although he did speak out a lot during class
discussions. Dan appeared to have a strong influence on some of the
other students in Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour class. Although these
students did not follow him blindly, Dan usually set the pace for
most of the clowning around that occurred inside this classroom.

Dan's closest friend in this class was Sam. He didn't appear
to be academically oriented much of the time, either. In fact, he
seemed to take pride in the fact that he was in a remedial reading
class.

Karen and Steve were more peripheral to Dan and Sam. Karen and
Steve appeared to be more academically oriented than Dan and Sam,
yet at times, they did not participate in class work. Instead, they
sometimes participated in clowning around in class; usually after
Dan had prompted it.

Mary was one of the hardest working students in the general
class. Unlike Dan, Sam, Karen, and Steve, she appeared to be very
academically oriented. In many ways, she reminded me of Erin. She
was very articulate and well behaved.

These five students represented a cross section of students in
Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour general science class; thus, they became
members of my target group for this class.

While the present study is more interested in what happens in

different science classrooms as a whole rather than in individual

43

students, it cannot be forgotten that characteristics of individuals
in classes contribute considerably to the classroom environment.
This is why this study revolved around how these target students
interacted with each other and with Mr. Johnson, how they thought
about things, and what they shared together as members of their
respective science classes.

These particular target students were selected as the study
progressed, and my rationale for selecting these students grew out
of my identification of social groups within the two science
classes. The enriched science class didn't appear to have separate
social groups. Erin, Concetta, and Theresa along with the other
members of this class appeared to share the same collective
understanding of what being in an enriched science class signified.
That understanding included the idea that they were good in science,
enjoyed working hard, enjoyed challenges, receive good grades, and
followed classroom rules. Marty was selected because he didn't
appear to share all of these beliefs. He didn't appear to enjoy
working hard and the idea of always following classroom rules didn't
appear to set well with him either.

In the general science class there appeared to be three
different social groups that each had its own collective
understanding. Mary represented the group of students that worked
hard in science class and in many ways shared the same
understandings that enriched science students shared. Dan and Sam
represented the group of students that appeared to shared an

understanding that was the complete opposite of the group that Mary

44

represented. From my observations they did not appear interested in
the science class and frequently disobeyed classroom rules. In many
ways this group that showed signs of becoming alienated from science
class. Karen and Steve represented the group of students that
shared an understanding that was somewhere between the two other
social groups. If the climate of the class was academic, they
appeared willing to participate, but if the climate was disruptive,
they frequently supported the disruptive activity. While each
member of Mr. Johnson's enriched and general science classes were
different from the other, social groups of students appeared bound
together by a collectively shared understanding of life inside Mr.

Johnson's general or enriched science class.

e evelo ment 0 atia Arran ements
Between So Grou 5 nd urther

Evidenge that the Enriched and
e era c ence C asses Were Different

Mr. Johnson's classroom was arranged in six rows of movable
desks lined up facing Mr. Johnson's desk, while the rear of the
classroom was arranged in four rows of movable lab tables, each with
four seats per table. One day, while analyzing Mr. Johnson's
fourth-hour seating chart, I thought I saw a pattern developing. It
appeared that some of the students that I had identified as showing
signs of becoming alienated were now sitting in the back of the Mr.
Johnson's classroom. This made me think back to the first day of
school. That day in Mr. Johnson's science classes, I remembered

seeing a few boys jockeying for seats at the end of the row (this

was especially noticeable in Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour general

45

science class). I remembered why I had done this sort of thing when
I was in school; I wanted to sit out of direct view of the teacher,
that way I could get away with more mischief in class. Mr. Johnson
altered the boys' plans by making his own seating chart (see Figures
1 and 2). At that time I didn't see a particular pattern between
who the students were and where they sat. As the year progressed, a
pattern began to emerge. The following vignettes will illustrate
how the pattern started.

Monday mornings were usually the time that Mr. Johnson started
new material. In the third—hour enriched science class he started a
new chapter with those students. Soon the fourth-hour general
science class would begin. As the students entered the classroom, I
took my usual seat at one of the lab tables in the back. As soon
the bell rang, Mr. Johnson began his daily attendance routine.
After Mr. Johnson announced, "Open your textbooks to page 46. Yes,
I said get out your books. Yes, that was page 46. That is where
the chapter on vertebrate animals begins. Today we will read the
chapter together out loud. Afterward, I want you to make an outline
of the chapter by copying down the first sentence of every paragraph
in the chapter. For those of you haven't realized, often the main
idea of the paragraph is stated in the first sentence of each
paragraph.”

As Mr. Johnson directed the reading of the chapter, I overheard
a conversation between two students. Dan, who sat in front of me,
called out to Sam, ”What a bunch of crap. Copy the first sentence

of every paragraph," he said attempting to mimic Mr. Johnson voice.

 

46

Sam nodded his head in agreement.

"What did you think of the game Friday?" Sam whispered back.

"Awesome," replied Dan.

As the class continued it's reading activity, Dan, Sam, and now
Steve continued with their conversation, only stopping when it was
their turn to read or when Mr. Johnson looked in their direction.

I was always amazed at the way some students were able to carry
on so much of their own personal conversations during class while
still apparently participating in Mr. Johnson's academic activities.

"How many points did you end up with?" asked Sam.

"Fourteen,” said Steve gloomily, ”I missed a lot of easy
shots." ”We missed a lot of easy shots, too," snickered Dan, "but
we were still able to beat you clowns."

When the rest of the class started working on their writing
assignment, Sam, Steve, and Dan continued their conversation about
the game, while giving the impression that they, too, were working
on the writing assignment. This continued for at least 10 minutes.
Finally, Mr. Johnson said, "All right back there; keep it quiet."
Steve turned around. ”Have some courtesy for those students still
working.”

Although the boys did halt their conversation momentarily, they
soon returned to it. It didn't seem to make much difference what
Mr. Johnson said or did; they seemed determined to continue their
conversation, taking advantage of whenever Mr. Johnson was occupied
with other things or when he was out of seeing or hearing range

(Fieldnotes, 10/12/89).

 

47

This activity was not unusual in Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour
general science class. Students would talk among themselves about
items of mutual interest while giving the impression of looking
busy. In the case of Sam, Steve, and Dan (and a few other boys),
many times the topic of conversation was sports. For other students
the subjects could vary. Activities before and after school,
television shows, and other people were all popular topics. And
many times, it appeared that as long as the students weren't loud or
disruptive with their conversations and they at least appeared to be
doing their work, Mr. Johnson would not break up these
conversations.

To the person who has not been in a school for some period of
time and might attribute this off-task behavior in the general class
to disrespectful students, I suspect that this was not the case.
Even in Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science class, this kind
of activity went on between students. It appeared to be standard
behavior.

For instance, one day while Mr. Johnson was giving his enriched
science class a lesson, I noticed a girl standing away from her
desk. The girl was Theresa and she was talking to another girl,
Nicole, who sat two desks from her own. Apparently, Mr. Johnson
didn't realize what was going on because he continued with his
lesson, never saying anything to the girls. After observing this, I
noted how long their conversation carried on. I estimated that they
had talked for two or three minutes when Theresa finally went back

to her desk. Yet after a few moments, she returned and continued

48

her conversation with Nicole, only this time she was kneeling.
After another two or three minutes, Mr. Johnson said, "Theresa,
would you please take your seat?” (Fieldnotes, 11/2/89).

I had witnessed that enriched and general science students
carried on their own personal conversations during Mr. Johnson's
class many times. However, today, because it was the beginning of a
new chapter, I decided to look in Mr. Johnson's grade book to see
how the students had fared on the previous chapter. To my surprise
there appeared to be some interesting differences. For the most
part, the enriched science students completed all of their
assignments and received fairly good grades, while many of the
general science students had missing assignments and/or poor grades
on the assignments they had done (see Appendices Q and R). I
wondered what could explain this. I concluded that the enriched
students carried on their personal conversations while
simultaneously fulfilling Mr. Johnson's academic requirements, while
some of the general science students did not appear able to do that.
A conversation that I had with Erin and Concetta later that week
shed some light into this assertion.

I'Yes, there is a technique involved in talking in Mr. Johnson's
class. Most of the students know it; they don't want to get in
trouble,” Erin said.

Concetta agreed, nodding her head.

Erin continued, ”You have to know when to talk and when to

work. If Mr. Johnson gives you a lot of work, you don't want to

 

49

talk much; but if he is in a good mood and he doesn't give you a lot
of work, then you can talk more." (Fieldnotes, ll/l9/89).

The evidence above suggests that enriched science students
seemed to know when to talk and when not to talk. They appeared
committed to fulfilling Mr. Johnson's academic requirements, and
they didn't appear to want their talking to get them into trouble
with Mr. Johnson. I wondered if the general science students felt
the same way.

Monday morning, and again Sam, Steve, and Dan were
accomplishing their personal agenda while Mr. Johnson gave
instructions to the class. On this day, Mr. Johnson, possibly
irritated by their behavior, called out, "Steve, do you know what
the assignment is?"

"No,” replied Steve.

”Maybe you would if you weren't spending so much time talking,"
Mr. Johnson said.

Sam, Steve, and Dan all smiled sheepishly.

This appeared to cause Mr. Johnson to continue, "You guys think
this class is a joke don't you, but you would be upset if I flunked
you, wouldn't you? Sam, take a seat at that table in the back of
the room, and, Dan, you take a seat at the other table in the back.
Those will be your permanent seats from now on."

As the boys walked back to their newly assigned seats, Mr.
Johnson came over to me and said, ”I don't know what to do with

those guys. It's really a pity, too. I see it every year kids that

50

pull this kind of stuff. How do you get kids like that to turn some
of that energy into something useful?" (Fieldnotes, 11/10/89).

After observing other students being placed permanently in the
rear of the room, I asked Mr. Johnson why he moved students back
there. Paraphrasing Mr. Johnson's response, he moved students whom
he felt excessively participated in personal conversations and
activities while doing little or poor quality academic work to the
back of the room because he thought they could get more work done if
they were not seated next to other students (Fieldnotes, 11/29/89).

I understood Mr. Johnson's plan and the pattern that was
developing in his seating chart. While this plan may have achieved
one of Mr. Johnson's initial goals, which was preventing these
personal conversations, it may have also had some unintended
consequences. Another vignette will show what I mean.

Another day while the general science students were busy
completing their assignment, I overheard Dan mumbling how boring
this class was now that he was not located near his friends. After
a moment or two, Mr. Johnson called out, "Dan get rid of the gum."

"I don't have any gum,” Dan shouted back.

"Don't tell me you don't have gum; I saw you chewing it," Mr.
Johnson replied calmly.

"I don't have any gum,” Dan shouted again. Dan opened his
mouth and wiggled his tongue around to give Mr. Johnson a good look.
"See? No gum," Dan shouted triumphantly.

Mr. Johnson was caught; he could do nothing. He said, "OK,

stop moving your mouth like you're chewing on something.”

 

51

After that incident, Sam and Steve (and a few other students
apparently loyal to Dan's cause) started moving their mouths like
they, too, were chewing gum. Needless to say, not much more work
was accomplished by these students the rest of the hour. Mr.
Johnson, possibly irritated by some of these students' behavior,
made the whole class sit up straight in their chairs and be totally
quiet before he dismissed them (Fieldnotes, 11/13/89).

The next day I asked Karen (who was one of the general science
students who had supported Dan in his pretend gum chewing escapade)
why she had done so.

"Who, me? I did it because he deserved it. He's always having
us do stupid things that don't make sense, like writing the first
sentence of every paragraph in the chapter” (Fieldnotes, 11/14/89).

What these vignettes and informal interviews suggest is that
the enriched science students and some of the general science
students were different in regard to their commitment to fulfilling
Mr. Johnson's academic requirements. Enriched science students
frequently carried on their own personal conversations during Mr.
Johnson's science class but appeared committed to fulfilling Mr.
Johnson's academic requirements, while some students in the general
science class frequently carried on their own personal conversations
during Mr. Johnson's science class but did not appear committed to
fulfilling Mr. Johnson's academic requirements. Some of these
general science students' justification for not doing their work
appeared to be related to the tasks they were asked to do by Mr.

Johnson, particularly the copying of the first sentence of every

 

52

paragraph in the chapter. These general science students appeared
to be calling into question the value of the work they were being
assigned.

Mr. Johnson's plan of moving certain students to the back of
the room appeared to have some unintended consequences, such as the
development of conflicts between Mr. Johnson and the students now
sitting in the back of the room. Furthermore, there appeared to be
an allegiance developing among the students who were sitting in the
back of the room and some of the other members of the class, in
relation to their participation in mischievous behavior against Mr.
Johnson's authority and requirements. To make this clearer, I have
included a copy of the seating chart as it stood at this point
approximately halfway through the year, highlighting the students
who participated in the gum chewing escapade (see Figures 5 and 6).

I asked myself, ”What's happening here?" My hunch was that Mr.
Johnson's perceptions of the academic capabilities of the general
science students led him to come up with a strategy for helping them
make an outline. That strategy was having them copy down the first
sentence of every paragraph in the chapter so the main ideas of the
chapter would be in their notes. (It is important to note that Mr.
Johnson told me that he had given these general science students the
opportunity to outline, however, he found out that they could do it
adequately). While it may be true that often the main idea of the
paragraph is stated in the first sentence of each paragraph, this
task doesn't give the students the opportunity to develop the skill

of making an outline. In addition, because of its boring nature,

 

53

this task was seen as stupid to many of the general science
students. Consequently, many of them either didn't do it or used it
as justification for rebelling.

It was also interesting that Mr. Johnson didn't see the need to
have his enriched science class use this strategy. Maybe it was
because of the assumption he has about their academic capabilities.
Instead, he asked the enriched students to make outlines of chapters
by finding the main ideas embedded in the chapter. This meant that
they were given the opportunity to develop this important skill.

But this is not just a question of having an opportunity to
learn an important skill. The use of this strategy in the general
science class and the absence of its use in the enriched science
class represents a difference in the level of engagement in the
subject matter that these two classes participated in at times. The
task of copying doesn't require any thinking about the content,
whereas searching through the chapter and finding the main ideas
does involve thinking about the content.

Now, don't misunderstand what I am saying here. I had no
expectation that all seventh grade science students will finish
their science classes having learned all the same things. But I did
assume that certain skills will at least be attempted by everyone
and that the level of engagement would be such that students would
be asked to think about the subject matter. What this evidence
shows is that in this general science class, this wasn't being done.
The enriched science students were given the opportunity to develop

an important skill and to think about the subject matter. This

54

knowledge will most surely be useful to them later in life,
especially if they go on to college. The general science students
were not being given these opportunities, possibly because of the
perceptions that their teacher had in their ability to do or learn
it. What they did, instead, was copy out of the book. Clearly,
this will not be of much value to the students later on in their
lives.

The evidence above suggested that perceptions the teacher held
concerning what the general science students were able to do or
learn sometimes resulted in that class missing out on certain
opportunities to develop skills and think about the subject matter.
What I will illustrate in a subsequent section is that sometimes the
teacher's perceptions extended not only to what he believed certain
groups of students were capable of doing or learning, but also to
what he believed these students would like to do in the first place.
In the section called The Leaf Collection Project, I will illustrate
this through the examination of a project called the leaf
collection. The following section illustrates the academic work of

the two science classes.

Academic Work of Mr, Johnson's
Eggfghgd and Genefal §cfence Classes

As I mentioned before, Mr. Johnson taught both the third-hour
enriched and the fourth-hour general science classes. In both these
classes, Mr. Johnson divided his instructional school year so that
he covered eleven chapters (Chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12)

from the textbook entitled Lffe Science (1984). This textbook

55

explores the basic structures, functions, and interactions of living
things. Mr. Johnson followed a fairly consistent pattern when
teaching each chapter (see Figure 7). To illustrate the nature of
that pattern of instruction more fully, I have included a
description of the day to day activities of instruction for one
representative chapter. This will serve as a model of the academic
work done in all the chapters.

The representative chapter that I chose was chapter four. I
chose this chapter because it contains most of the academic
activities usually assigned by Mr. Johnson in a typical chapter.

Chapter four is entitled ”Protists." It is a basic
introduction to the structures, functions, classification, and
interactions of protists. It is divided into the following
sections: Bacteria, Protozoans, Slime Molds, and Viruses. Each
section is a separate study unit that concludes with a section
check-up. The chapter ends with a chapter summary, vocabulary
words, and a variety of content and concept questions.

On the first day of instruction on chapter four in Mr.
Johnson's enriched and general science classes, Mr. Johnson took
about ten minutes of class time introducing the chapter and its
objectives. Mr. Johnson started his introduction of the chapter by
asking the students what they knew about organisms called Protists.
He then lectured to them about some of the characteristics of
protists. In the lecture he stressed why they are not plants and

why they are not animals, and how scientists classify them. He then

56

read the chapter objectives to the class and included some
additional objectives.

After the introduction of the chapter and its objectives, Mr.
Johnson gave the students a reading assignment. The reading
assignment involved having the students take turns reading one
paragraph of the chapter at a time out loud. Mr. Johnson said he
liked this activity because, "Then I know the kids have been exposed
to the material at least one time. If I see it's going to get down
to some student that can't read very well, several Vietnamese
students just can't read much English and I have some kids with very
low reading levels, then I would try to steer around so they get a
small paragraph or maybe I'll even break a large paragraph into two
pieces and give this kid one and give this kid the other half."

As the students took turns reading, Mr. Johnson periodically
asked questions about various aspects of the reading. Occasionally,
Mr. Johnson would elaborate on one of these questions and try to
direct a short discussion about it. On this day, the students were
not able to finish reading the chapter, so Mr. Johnson assigned the
remainder as homework.

On the second day of instruction on chapter four, Mr. Johnson
had his enriched science students make an outline of the chapter.

To make this outline Mr. Johnson had the students write down all the
topic headings throughout the chapter. Then he instructed the
students to read the paragraphs under those headings. For each

paragraph the student read, they were instructed to ask themselves,

 

57

”What was the main idea of that paragraph?" Then they were
instructed to write down the main idea under that heading.

In the general science class Mr. Johnson instructed the
students to write down the first sentence of every paragraph. This
idea of having the students write the first sentence of every
paragraph was something that Mr. Johnson did on a regular basis with
this class. He believed that the text was written in such a way
that, usually, the first sentence in the paragraph contained the
main points of the paragraph.

Day three of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes was identical to day two. The
students continued working on their outlines, and at the end of the
class period they turned their outlines in to Mr. Johnson for
grading.

On the fourth day of instruction on chapter four in Mr.
Johnson's enriched science class, Mr. Johnson divided the students
in six groups. Each group was assigned a topic and four questions
related to that topic. Mr. Johnson told the students to answer the
questions by working together cooperatively. The first group was
assigned bacteria, the second group was assigned amoeba, the third
ciliates, the fourth flagelates, the fifth sporozoan, and the sixth
group slime molds and virus.

On the fourth day of instruction on chapter four in Mr.
Johnson's general science class, Mr. Johnson gave them a worksheet
on the chapter. The worksheet followed a fill-in-the-blank format.

Students were instructed to read through the chapter and fill in the

58

missing words. The worksheet required the students to recall
factual information from their reading of the chapter four.
Afterwards, they were instructed to exchange worksheets with each
other so that it could be graded. Mr. Johnson led the grading
activity by asking students what was written on the worksheets they
were correcting. These worksheets were then hand into Mr. Johnson
so he could record the grades in his grade book.

On day five of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes, Mr. Johnson instructed the
students to draw and label several pictures from the chapter, such
as a typical bacteria cell, plant cell, and animal cell. When
drawing and labeling these pictures, students were instructed to
note that bacteria cells have structures which are similar to those
of both animal and plant cells, but bacteria cells lack structures
that either plants or animals cells have. These drawing were
collected for grading.

On day six of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes, Mr. Johnson had the students
start a lab entitled Microscopes (part A). Mr. Johnson spent the
first ten minutes of instruction that day lecturing about the parts
of a simple microscope and how to use and care for it properly. (I
thought it noteworthy that in the enriched science class, all
students were allowed to picked their lab partners, while in the
general science class, some of the students were allowed to pick
their lab partners while others, mainly the students who had been

permanently assigned to seats in the rear of the room, had their lab

59

partners picked for them by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson told me that
he assigned these students lab partners in an attempt to separate
potential problem students and/or enemies). Part A of the lab was
called Looking at Fingerprints. The students were instructed by Mr.
Johnson to read and follow the directions in the lab book for part
A. As the students read and followed the directions, Mr. Johnson
assigned questions from their lab book pertaining to part A.
Students worked together on the lab and on the questions with their
lab partner.

Day seven of instruction in Mr. Johnson's enriched and general
science classes was a continuation of the lab entitled Microscopes,
only this time they worked on part B and part C. Part B was called
Types of Microscopes and dealt with a simple introduction to
different types of microscopes. Part C was called Parts of the
Microscope and dealt with the identification of the parts of a
simple microscope. The students were instructed by Mr. Johnson to
read and follow the directions in the lab book for part B and C and
to answer questions that he assigned from their lab book pertaining
to part B and C. Students worked together on the lab and on the
questions with their lab partner.

Day eight of instruction in Mr. Johnson's enriched and general
science classes involved having the students finish the lab entitled
Microscopes (part D). Part D was called Find the Missing Letter.
The students were to cut out the letter "k” from a newspaper and
then prepare it so it could be viewed with their microscopes. The

students were instructed by Mr. Johnson to read and followed the

 

60

directions in the lab book for part D, while Mr. Johnson assigned
questions from their lab book pertaining to part D. After the
students completed part D, they were instructed to hand in all the
answers to all the questions for parts A, B, C, and D of the lab.

Any students who finished early were given a puzzle that helped
them build their vocabulary and a worksheet that covered concepts
presented in chapter four of their textbook. The worksheet was on
the multiple choice, filling in the blank, and essay question
format. The worksheet required the students to recall factual
information from their reading of the chapter four and to explain
certain concepts presented in chapter four.

Day nine of instruction in Mr. Johnson's enriched and general
science classes involved having each student either find vocabulary
words related to chapter four in a word search, or finish any part
of the lab entitled Microscopes, and/or finish the worksheet from
the previous day. At the end of this class period, the lab
questions and the word search were collected by Mr. Johnson. Most
of the time, one class would grade another classes work under Mr.
Johnson supervision. Occasionally, Mr. Johnson would select one of
the enriched science students and have them grade the papers of the
general science class or he would grade them himself. Mr. Johnson
usually did the recording of all the grades in his grade book.
Students received credit for doing the word searches only if it was
completed or nearly completed.

The next day was the last day of the first marking period. Mr.

Johnson had to do some procedural things for the school. He had to

 

61

collect, examine, and return the textbooks for every student. These
activities took the entire class period, so no instruction on
chapter four was done in either of Mr. Johnson's classes that day.
The students were given free time to work on any subject they liked.

Day ten of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes involved having each student do
the chapter four check-up questions located at the end of each
section in the chapter. Each section check-up asked the students to
answer two or three questions related to the section to reinforce
their learning. The questions usually involved explanations of key
concepts and principles presented in the section. These questions
and answers were collected and graded by student aids or by Mr.
Johnson himself. Occasionally, Mr. Johnson would select one of the
enriched science students and have them grade the papers of the
general science class.

Day eleven of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes involved having each student do
a crossword puzzle that Mr. Johnson gave them. The crossword puzzle
used terms and phrases presented in chapter four as puzzle clues.

(I found it noteworthy that after the students were finished with
the crossword puzzle, Mr. Johnson allowed the enriched science
students to study in small groups for the test they would be having
soon covering material presented in chapter four. The general
science students were instructed to study alone. Mr. Johnson told
me that he had the general science students study alone because if

he allowed them to study together, they tended to talk about each

 

62

other or sports, they would not study). At the end of these class
periods, the crossword puzzles were collected by Mr. Johnson.
Students received credit for doing the crossword puzzle only if it
was completed or nearly completed.

On day twelve of instruction on chapter four in Mr. Johnson's
enriched and general science classes, the students did the chapter
check—up questions, located at the end of chapter four, as a
practice test. The chapter questions consisted of ten vocabulary
matching questions, five content fill-in the blank questions, five
content multiple choice questions, ten content short answer
questions, and five concept essay questions. The answers to the
practice test were presented at the end of the class periods by Mr.
Johnson. The practice test was graded by the students themselves,
but not collected or recorded in Mr. Johnson's grade book.

On the last day of instruction on chapter four (day thirteen),
Mr. Johnson gave his enriched and general science students a test on
the material covered in chapter four. The test was the standard
test suggested by the publisher of the text. It consisted of ten
multiple choice questions, ten matching questions, and five essay
questions. Mr. Johnson picked out two of the essay questions and
had the students answer those two only. Mr. Johnson allowed the
students to use their notes but not their books while taking the
test. At the end of the class periods, the tests were collected and
graded by student aids or by Mr. Johnson himself.

As can be seen, Mr. Johnson taught both classes basically the

same material at more or less the same rate, although, occasionally,

 

63

the enriched class did some activities that the general class did
not do and, occasionally, Mr. Johnson let the enriched science
students work in small groups. The general science class rarely
worked in small groups except when doing a lab (my fieldnotes

recorded only five times throughout the entire school year).

The Leaf Collection Project

The leaf collection assignment was a project that Mr. Johnson
reserved for his enriched science class only because, to paraphrase
Mr. Johnson, enriched science students are supposed to be able to
comprehend and do things that general science students are not able
to do or are not interested in doing. This project was seen by Mr.
Johnson as a highly motivating and worthwhile assignment, allowing
students to create something that they could keep and be proud of,
as well as teaching them to observe, classify, categorize, analyze,
and interpret data. The inclusion of the leaf collection project in
Mr. Johnson's enriched science class and the absence of it in Mr.
Johnson's general science class shows a interesting contrast in the
experiences that these students were given in their respective
science classes.

The following vignette began at 10:02 a.m., three minutes
before Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science class was to begin.
As some students stood around in groups of two or three talking to
each other either inside the classroom or in the hall just outside
the classroom, other students took their assigned seats or wandered

around the classroom scanning Mr. Johnson's displays and

 

—_— ' ' '—- 1.....-”

64

chalkboards. At 10:05 a.m. the bell sounded, signaling the start of
third-hour classes. Instantly, those students left in the halls and
those in the classroom hurried to their assigned seats. It was time
for Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science class to begin
officially.

The class started with the students waiting while Mr. Johnson
did his attendance routine. Mr. Johnson then stepped to the front
of the classroom and said, "OK, listen up." He waited for a moment
while the class settled down; then, he proceeded to speak. ”Today
we will be starting a project that I'm sure you'll all enjoy. You
will be making a leaf collection. I'll explain the guidelines."

Mr. Johnson then passed out a leaf collection guideline sheet and a
table of content sheet to all the students. He began reading from
the guideline sheet. ”Number one, you must have the correct leaf to
be eligible for any points on a page. Number two, all information
on the mounting sheet must be printed. Number three, you may earn
one point for the correct leaf properly mounted, one point for the
scientific name properly spelled, one point for the date collected,
one point for the place collected, and one point for the collector's
name. This is a total of five points per page if the information is
correct and all directions have been followed.”

Mr. Johnson then looked around and asked if there were any
questions. Marty shouted from the back of the room, "Is this for'
extra credit?"

”No, this leaf collection counts for half of your second

marking period grade,” Mr. Johnson replied. Then he continued

65

reading the rest of the guidelines for the project. "Number four,
you must arrange your leaves in order according to the content's
page." Mr. Johnson held a content's page up so the students could
see it and identify their own. He continued, "Number five, leaf
collections may be turned in from October 18 to October 20, 1989,
without penalty. After October 20, 1989 you will be marked down one
grade each day it is late. Number six, do not use numbers for the
month, use the abbreviation for the month and be sure you include
the year. For example: October 7, 1989. Number seven, leaves must
be mounted with their upper surface up. The exception to this is
when you mount a Red Oak or Black Oak. In order to identify these
two leaves, they must be mounted with their lower surface up.
Number eight, for place collected, put down a large town, a city, or
the county; be sure you include the state. For example: Loran,
State, or Jackson County, State. Number nine, do not collect leaves
at State University, Loran Arboretum, or Woodland Park. Number ten,
we may keep up to five leaves from each collection to put in school
leaf collections. Number eleven, grading scale: 90 points for an
A, 80 to 89 points for a B, 70 to 79 points for a C, 60 to 69
points for a D. Number twelve, to get an A on this leaf collection,
you must turn it in on time and have enough points. Number
thirteen, this leaf collection counts 50% of the second marking
period grade. Number fourteen, don't climb trees to get leaves."
Mr. Johnson again looked around and asked if there were any
questions. There were none, so Mr. Johnson introduced the next

activity on his agenda. "Get your books out and open to page 70.

 

66

We will be starting a new chapter today, 'An Introduction to
Plants.'"

The next 15 minutes were spent having different students read
aloud. The other students listened and followed along, reading
silently to themselves. All the readers appeared to have good
reading skills. Afterward, Mr. Johnson passed out worksheets on
which the students were expected to answer some questions related to
the reading. Mr. Johnson turned to the class and said, "OK, you
guys know what you're supposed to be doing; let's get going."

Before the students began working on their worksheets, there was the
usual hunt by some students for something to write with.

At 10:50 a.m., Mr. Johnson announced that there were 10 minutes
left in the class and that they could spend the final minutes
working on this assignment in small groups if they could be totally
quiet for two minutes first. Mr. Johnson timed the students and
they took advantage of this opportunity to work and socialize,
mostly socialize together by making the time limit. The students
worked together in small groups until the bell sounded, signaling
the end of third hour.

At 11:02 a.m., Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour general science
students began entering the classroom. They, too, visited with each
other just as the enriched class had done. I could hear Dan telling
jokes to two other seventh-grade general science students, Karen and
Steve. They were still laughing and carrying on well after the bell
rang. Mr. Johnson again started his daily routine of

attendance-taking. Afterwards, I expected him to do with the

67

general class the same things he had done with the enriched class.
To my surprise, he didn't. Instead, Mr. Johnson skipped the leaf
collection project and directed the students to open their books to
the new chapter they, too, were starting today. It was the same
chapter (”An Introduction to Plants") that the enriched science
students had started today in third hour. Mr. Johnson gave his
general science students an overview of the chapter and then
instructed different students to read aloud. Mr. Johnson said, ”OK,
Mary, why don't you start the reading?"

As Mary read out aloud, the other students were expected to
listen and follow along reading silently to themselves. One by one,
following the order of the seating chart, Mr. Johnson had the
students take turns reading a paragraph at a time. Some students
appeared to have good reading skills and some didn't. For example,
when Tyrone's turn came, a student that I found out later was a
special education student, Dan said, in a low voice that Mr. Johnson
couldn't hear, ”He can't read. I bet he doesn't even know how to
tie his shoes in the morning.” Sam then let out a ”Duh” from the
back of the room, and a few students started snickering.

Mr. Johnson stared at the class for a moment and then turned to
Tyrone and asked him to give it a try. Tyrone tried to ignore the
comments and began to read. When Tyrone made mistakes, Mr. Johnson
helped him. Sam was pointing to his head and making circles. I had
seen this gesture before; it meant that Tyrone was dumb.

About 15 minutes of class time was spent on this reading

activity. Afterwards, Mr. Johnson passed out the same worksheets

 

68

that he had handed out in the enriched science class. He said "Put
your name and hour on the top of your worksheets; remember no name,
no credit. Any questions? OK, get going."

As the students began to work on their worksheets, Dan shouted
out to Mr. Johnson, "I don't have a pencil.”

Mr. Johnson said with a puzzled look on his face, "Why did you
come to school without a pencil? I don't understand."

Dan shrugged his shoulders.

Mr. Johnson said as he scanned the room, ”Does anybody have an
extra pencil that Dan can use?"

A few students started searching through their belongings for
an extra pencil, but no one came up with one. Mr. Johnson shrugged
his shoulders and said, "I don't know what you're going to do?"

Most of the students in the class watched to see what Dan would
do. Dan slouched back in his chair and did nothing. After a while,
I looked in my briefcase and found a pencil that I gave to Dan. He
looked up at me and the corners of his mouth curved upward and
formed a smile. He took the pencil and began to work on his
worksheets.

After about 20 minutes Mr. Johnson asked the class, "How many
of you are finished?" About half of the students raised their
hands. Dan, sitting at a table in the back, winked at Sam who sat
across from him at another.table. Dan then announced, "I'm not
finished." Sam, realizing what Dan was up to announced, "I'm not

finished either.” Then they both smiled. Needless to say, they

 

69

both were probably finished, but they didn't want Mr. Johnson to
know that.

"Well, let's hurry up; class will be over in 10 minutes." Mr.
Johnson then announced that they could spend the final minutes
working on this assignment in small groups if they could be totally
quiet for two minutes first. Mr. Johnson timed the general science
students, just as he had done with the enriched science students,
however the general science students did not take advantage of this
opportunity. They never made the time limit and consequently they
were not allowed to worked together in small groups (Fieldnotes,
10/29/89).

When I analyzed this vignette, I again saw differences between
the two science classes. There was a difference in the activities
that these classes were exposed to, there was a difference in the
variability between students' reading skills, there was a difference
in the involvement of the students in the subject matter, and there
was a difference in the social interaction between the participants
(good will among fellow students and between the teacher and the
students), as well as the social interactions (working in small
groups) permitted by their teacher in the classroom.

I decided to ask Mr. Johnson about his decision to expose the
enriched science class to the leaf collection project and not the
general science class. The following is an excerpt of an interview

that I had with Mr. Johnson about this topic.

70

....Now the things I want to ask you are what are
the advantages and disadvantages for the enriched
kids doing the leaf collection project and the
advantages and disadvantages of the general
science kids not doing it?

The general science kids?
Looking at the advantages and disadvantages.

General science students can't or won't do the
assignment. It just requires more than they seem
to be able to put forth, and I think its in
addition to them not being able to do it. I think
a lot of them just don't want to. The enriched
kids get to learn how to classify, how to observe,
more in-depth on actual things.

What do you think the disadvantages are for the
general science class. What do you think about
the disadvantages?

Of the kids not doing the leaf collection?
Yeah.
The disadvantages?

And how it relates to some of the criticisms
people might say about these kids not being able
to have the opportunity to do certain activities.

Some of the kids who may want to do that sort of
thing don't get a chance to. I almost always make
extra credit available and one of the ways extra
credits available is --let the kids who want to do
a leaf collection, and very few of them do it. In
fact the year that you were here, nobody did it
for extra credit. 80 I don't really see too much
wrong with that.

But what do you think the disadvantages are, as
far as science is concerned?

They don't get to, there aren't that many cause
they don't want to do it and if they do wish to do
it they have the opportunity and in last year's
case they chose not to, so I really don't see
anything wrong in that. They do other things.
Twenty seconds, okay?

71

R: Okay, thank you for the interview and.
T: Sorry it's so short.

R: No, it's fine. Stop. (Teacher interview, Apr.
10, 1990).

The differences between these two science classes appeared to
be related to perceptions held by the participants. These
perceptions appeared to influence the participation of the
participants of the classrooms. For example, Mr. Johnson's
perceptions of the two science classes and his experience with
enriched and general science students influenced his decision to
provide the two science classes with different access to certain
activities. He perceived that the general science students would
not be able to do the leaf collection project and that they wouldn't
want to do it in the first place.

Appendix G displays other activities experienced by the
enriched class, but not by the general class. While I did analyze
these activities from a particular point of view, that being that
some activities are more valuable than others, these activities
could have important implications for the futures of the students
involved. For example, if students in the enriched science class
were given more opportunities to do activities that allowed them to
obtain additional practice at observing, classifying, categorizing,
analyzing, interpreting, and thinking about the subject matter, and
the students in the general science class were not given this
additional practice, it would not surprise me if enriched science
students were better prepared for high school than general science

students.

 

72

Keeping the 110 Classes fn Sypchronization

Mr. Johnson chose to keep his enriched and general science
classes at approximately the same place (in terms of advancing to
different chapters) so as to avoid confusion on his part in ordering
films, preparing handouts, grading papers, and preparing lesson
plans, although they contained students who were supposedly
different academically. If, for some reason, such as the enriched
students' doing a project that the general students weren't doing,
the two science classes got out of synchronization, Mr. Johnson
would either speed one class up or slow one down. While some might
question the legitimacy of such time management, Mr. Johnson's
reasoning made it seemingly unavoidable. He pointed out that
preparing labs meant setting up experiments, and having to set up
two labs the same day with equipment restrictions and space
limitations would be difficult (Fieldnotes, 4/19/90).

An example of keeping the classes in synchronization occurred
during the leaf collection project which the enriched science
students were doing and the general students were not. Yet over
that period of time, I observed that the two classes covered the
same chapter. In this case, the general science students covered it
at a slower pace than the enriched science students.

In order to get an idea of how much slower the general science
class had to proceed through the chapter, I asked Mr. Johnson to
express the extra time that the leaf collection required of the
students in the enriched science class. The following is an excerpt

of an interview I had with Mr. Johnson.

 

73

....Could you summarize the amount of time
students worked on their leaf collection and what
they did in class and how you assisted them. For
instance, in a week's time.

In a typical week, if the kids put in a normal
amount of work, they had at least one day during
the week to identify them. One hour a week in
science class. Plus they have to go out and
actually collect the leaves and dry them properly.

But they don't go out and collect the leaves while
in science class?

Okay, they have one hour a week minimum.
Sometimes they had two days or two hours a week.

I remember sometimes kids would finish their
assignments early and they would be allowed to go
back [to the back of the room] for the last ten
minutes and work on their leaf collection.

Yes, okay. Sometimes I do that. If the kids were
all done with what they were supposed to do, I
would let some go back and work on that.

You would have your little book [The Golden Nature
Qufde] on Leaves.

There were some leaf books [A Golden Guide-Trees]
that the kids could check out that are owned by me
personally. They were willed to me from a teacher
that used to be here. The kids check those out
and they can use them all hour. They have a
number on them so I know who has what and so
forth. They could do a decent job using just
that. What happens a lot of the times is when
they get into this, two or three weeks, they
really start liking this so they will go out and
buy their own. I see that year after year. Which
is a nice plus.

To assist them, they would have a leaf and they
would ask you what?

The kids would come up to me with a leaf. Unless
they were mired down to the hubcaps, I would never
tell them the leaf. You can come up and ask me,
if this is a cottonwood, and I would say yes or
no. But I am not going to, if you come up to me
and say, what is this, I am not going to tell
them. That forces them to look at the leaf

74

carefully, to go through the couple of keys that
kids use, to cooperatively learn, maybe somebody
out there knows what it is, to trade back and
forth, scientist sometimes do this, kids can too.
I have several other references, but we don't want
to give the kids too much information at this
stage of their leaf collection life, that I use.
The leaf collection students are capable of using
that. They can always come in before and after
school and there were some that did that.
(Interview conducted, 4/19/90)

In Mr. Johnson's effort to keep the classes in synchronization,
such as occurred during the leaf collection project, the general
science students had to cover the chapter at a much slower pace and
the enriched science had to cover the same chapter at a faster pace.
As was seen in the leaf collection vignette, one of Mr. Johnson's
strategies for accomplishing this appeared to be allowing the
enriched science students to work in small groups (possibly allowing
them to finish faster). While this might have accomplished his
goal, it appeared to have some unintended consequences as will be
seen.

Since general science students had to spend more time working
on the same material, the possibility existed that some students
would be off task. From my observations of this class, I would say
that this occurred many times when Mr. Johnson used this strategy.
As was seen in the leaf collection vignette, Mr. Johnson tries to
keep the students from being off task by keeping them busy with book
work. One problem with using this strategy was that the general
science class appeared to have students in it who had problems

behaving. This should not be surprising because, while schools that

ability group may try to distinguish between students who are poor

75

achievers because they lack skills or aptitude and those who are low
achievers because of disruptive behavior, this is nearly impossible.
What happens, it seems, is that classes with students who find it
hard to learn are mixed with those who find it hard to behave. This
possibility might be the case that caused Mr. Johnson some real
discipline problems with his general science class. He appeared to
find himself having to be more of a disciplinarian with this class
than he would have liked to be, i.e., not allowing the general
science class to work in small groups as frequently as he would have
wished. '

In addition, the enriched students received more opportunities
to interact with each other socially during class time because of
the nature of the activity they were doing. For example, in Mr.
Johnson's description of the extra work that the leaf collection
project provided, one can see plenty of opportunities for such
interaction.

Another thing that resulted in the enriched science students'
receiving more opportunities to work together in small groups was
their good behavior. Mr. Johnson used a strategy that rewarded the
class that could work quietly alone for a certain amount of time,
say 10 minutes, by allowing that class to work in small groups for
the rest of the class time. For example, on certain days Mr.
Johnson would say something like this to all his class, ”If you guy
can work quietly alone for ten minutes, I'll allow you to work
together for the rest of the hour, but if I have to tell someone to

stop talking before that 10 minutes is up, I will have to reset my

76

watch to 10 minutes and start over." An unintended consequence of
this strategy was that the enriched science class seemed to have no
problem making the time limit, although the general science students
frequently had trouble making the limit. This meant that
frequently, when Mr. Johnson used this strategy, the enriched
science class would end up having far more time to work in small
groups than the general science class. This all added up to general
science students' not getting as many opportunities to interact with
each other socially during class time. From my Fieldnotes, I
recorded that the enriched class was allowed to work in small groups
31 times throughout the school year, 6 times more than the general

class.

The Science Cam

The next matter of attention concerns a science camp which is
offered to all science students at Loran. The science camp provides
Loran teachers with the opportunity to teach science differently
from the classroom method and students with the opportunity to study
nature first-hand. It also provides teachers and students with the
opportunity to see each other in a different light, thus helping
build interpersonal relationships. Like the leaf collection
project, it provides the students the opportunity to observe,
classify, characterize, and analyze nature the way scientist really
do. Yet, also like the leaf collection project, the science camp
was not experienced by many of the students in Mr. Johnson's general

science class. The following analysis of the science camp will

 

77

elaborate on the differences between the worlds of science for the
general and enriched science students.

I was first made aware the existence of the science camp by Mr.
Johnson. During the first week of the school, he told me about some
of the activities that his classes would be doing during this school
year. He said that one thing they do every year is take the kids to
a science camp for a week. ”The kids really enjoy it, and I can get
about six weeks worth of science class in the week that we're down
there. They go cross country skiing, canoeing, and we can take the
kids for a walks so they can look at things through a hand lens;
things like that. You know, I bet I could work it out so that this
year you could go with us. It would be a really good thing to put
in your research.”

I could sense that Mr. Johnson was really proud of the things
that he was able to do with his students at science camp, and I
earnestly looked forward to the opportunity to witness it. As that
time drew nearer, I became more and more intrigued about camp, and
this led me to question Mr. Johnson about it on many occasions.

Concerning the history of the science camp, Mr. Johnson
informed me that the Franklin Environmental and Conference Center
where the camp was held opened in 1981. It is a place that science
teachers in the Loran School District could use as a science camp
for students presently taking science courses. The school district
purchased the Center, and Mr. Johnson believes the money came from.
private donors. There is a plaque in the main office of one of the

buildings that contains names of people who donated large amounts of

78

money. Mr. Johnson really didn't know why the Loran School District
got involved in building this science camp, but he did know that he
had gone there every year it has been open. The Center is located
on a generous portion of property approximately 50 miles west of
Loran. It is surrounded by two heavily wooded areas, a small lake,
and three adjacent buildings, two of which are dormitories.

Mr. Johnson's goals at the camp were to teach the students
things that he could not do in that way back in his classroom.

Also, he got a chance to see the students in a different light, and
they got to see him in a different light, providing a different kind
of rapport between them.

Mr. Johnson went on to inform me that because science is a
required course at Loran and only science students are allowed to go
to the camp, parents generally find out about it from science
teachers who, representing the school, send home flyers (near the
beginning of the year), telling them about their children's
opportunity to go to science camp and its cost. The year that I
went along, it cost each student's parents $55.00. Mr. Johnson told
me that in years past, it had cost considerably less, as low as
$35.00. It seems that every year the cost has gone up. I also
learned from Mr. Johnson that the Loran School District put up part
of the cost of students going because other school districts have to
pay approximately two-thirds more. Another way that students can
pay for their science camp trip was by selling candy or other
various things (although candy sells best). Mr. Johnson said that

there was tons of paper work involved in that for the candy company,

79

the school district, and for the teacher because students have their
own individual accounts. Typically, students earn about one dollar
for every box of candy that they sell. So if a student sold 55
boxes of candy this year, he/she could go free (Interview, 4/l9/90).

One question about which I was curious was who goes to camp and
how that decision is made. One aspect of this came to light a few
weeks prior to the students going to camp.

I arrived at Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science
classroom and saw some things that I had observed on a regular basis
on Mondays. A few teachers, including Mr. Johnson, were gathered in
the back of the room talking and drinking coffee. Soon the bell
rang and Mr. Johnson moved to the front of the classroom and began
his usual routine of attendance taking. “Who's absent in this row?"
Mr. Johnson said out loud as he walked past the rows of students.
After that, Mr. Johnson gave the students an announcement about
science camp. Summarizing Mr. Johnson's announcement, he reminded
the students that the science camp was happening in a few weeks and
everyone should really try to go because science camp is a great
learning experience and is fun, too. Mr. Johnson also reminded them
to be sure they turned in their signed permission slips and their
money from selling candy. He then read off a list of the students -
who hadn't turned in their candy money. One extra topic that Mr.
Johnson talked about with the students that he had not included in
previous announcements about science camp was the list of things

that students should bring and not bring with them to camp.

 

80

Questions and answers about science camp continued for several
minutes.

The announcement about science camp to the general science
class had special meaning. Mr. Johnson's announcement began in the
same way it had in the enriched science class. He reminded the
students that the science camp was happening in a few weeks and that
everyone should really try to go because science camp is a great
learning experience and is fun, too. Mr. Johnson reminded those
students to be sure they turned in their signed permission slips.
However, instead of talking about candy money or what to bring or
not bring to camp, he reminded the students that the school
district's policy was that any students who received a four or five
in citizenship from any teacher during the second marking period was
not eligible to go to camp. This brought about a chorus of
rumblings.

"I don't care; I wasn't going anyway," I heard Dan say under
his breath.

”Yeah, I don't care either,“ Sam blurted out, following which
Mr. Johnson moved to a different topic.

This episode, and the fact that Mr. Johnson did not elaborate
on any other science camp business, made me curious about the number
of students who were going to science camp from this general science
class versus the number going from enriched science class. To my
surprise, I found out from Mr. Johnson that only one student in the
general science class had signed up to go to science camp and that

all but two of the students in the enriched science class had signed

81

up. I wondered if the school's policy of not allowing any students

to go to camp who received a four or five in citizenship from any

teacher during the second marking period was the reason for the

disparity.

In a subsequent interview, Mr. Johnson identified two

reasons that he thought contributed to this disparity. The

following is an excerpt from that interview.

R:

These questions [about science camp] are more
specific to your general and enriched classes.
Were you surprised that only one student in the
general science class went to camp?

Yes, that seems to be a little bit low. Usually
it is more than that. Enriched kids go to camp
more than general class kids. A lot of time it is
money. Kids can't get the money together. Even
though we have the candy sale to earn the money,
some kids can't make enough to go. The typical
deal is for the parent to say, you earn half the
money, and we will pay half the money. That
happens a lot .

Who [which science students] is eligible [to go to
science camp] and who is not?

At the start of the year any kid is eligible to go
down there. We have a Loran School District rule
that any youngster that has a four or a five in
citizenship from any teacher, not just from me,
can't go to camp. I pretty much agree with that.
We don't need kids down there who are going to
mess up and cause problems .

Why do you think so few went out of your general
science class?

I really don't know. My guess would be money. I
know that a lot of kids had fours and fives and
even the ones that didn't and could have gone,
didn't and I really don't why .

Do you think there is a way to handle it so that
more general science students, like your class,

could go or do you see more problems if more of

those students went?

82

T: I think if some money was available it would get
some of them down there. As far as the
citizenship, if we end up having to take some kids
that don't behave themselves, it would probably be
the quickest way to kill the whole camping
programs because those kids will cause you major
problems very quickly (Interview, 4/10/90).

During the week of March 5 through March 9, 110 Loran science
students, three science teachers (Mr. Johnson, Mr. McDonald, and
Mrs. Jones), one former Loran science teacher (Mr. Thomas), one vice
principal (Ms. Powell), a few parental chaperones, a few high school
student chaperones, and I finally got our opportunity to experience
the science camp for 1990.

In the next section, I will examine some of the happenings at
science camp. Attention will be focused on the activities the
students experienced while at camp, even though, at one time or
another, I witnessed most of the activities myself. The general
perspectives of the camp experience as seen by a few students will
also be included. I hope to present a picture of the science camp
as seen from the inside, by a cross-section of the students
themselves. We now begin our trip to the Loran Science Camp.

As the big yellow buses rolled into the camp parking lot and
the students filed off the buses, I wondered what the general
students were doing back at Loran. The staff gave out dormitory
assignments, and students hurried to claim their bunks, unpack, and
attend orientation in the dining area. At orientation, I sat close
to some of Mr. Johnson's students. They were busy listening to the

camp staff introductions. The staff included a psychology

coordinator, a health officer, a secretary, and two naturalists.

 

83

The school district also hired cooks proportional to the number of
student attending and several custodial people. Other staff members
included a person hired to teach Native American studies and high
school students hired as "counselors in training.” Mr. Johnson
informed me that these high school students had been involved in the
science camp in previous years and had proven to be trustworthy.
Most of the discussion at orientation consisted of an
explanation of the rules and duties of the students while at camp.
One special duty that really impressed me was explained to the
students by a member of the staff.
S: ”One student a meal will be chosen to be a
'Hopper' for their table. The hoppers'
responsibilities are to come to the cafeteria 15
minutes prior to meals, in order to set the table.
In addition, the hopper will be responsible for
serving their table, which means that if anyone at
their table wants an additional food item, you
tell the hopper and the hopper has to bring that
item to the table. Let me warn you, please don't
misuse your hopper because you might be a hopper
at the next meal. The rational for this is to
avoid swarms of kids coming up to the cooks,
requesting additional food items. After the meal,
the hopper will clear and wipe the table, sweep
the area surrounding the table, and make sure the
chairs are placed neatly under the table. A table
of four or five students will take turns being the
hopper.” (Fieldnotes, 3/5/90).
As the staff member explained the responsibilities of a hopper,
I could tell by the students' body language that many students
disapproved of this duty, yet few ill words were murmured.
Also during orientation the students were told about an item
that they would be making in arts and crafts, a leather badge with a
rawhide string hanging from it. When students completed an

activity, the instructor would give each student a different colored

84

bead. At the end of the week each student could have 12 to 15 beads
strung from her/his badge. She/He could look back and say, ”I got .
this bead for participating in such and such activity," and so on.
One special head that was not given out to every student was one
students had to earn. Staff members gave this bead to students who
did something special to help another student or staff member. At
the end of orientation, the students were put into groups of about
10, and each group was assigned an camp activity. Each activity was
supervised by members of the staff and usually lasted about 90
minutes, after which the groups rotated to a different activity.

Two activities were scheduled before lunch and two more after lunch.
This pattern was followed each day of camp.

Tiny Things was the first activity that I was able to attend
with the students and observe. The staff member who led this group
was the vice principal Ms. Powell. Mr. Johnson told me that the
vice principals love coming to camp.

J: ”They [vice principals] love it because, let's face it,

the assistant principals do not have much contact at

all with the types of kids that go to camp. They deal

with the low life, the scums, the drug dealers, the

ones that bring weapons, the ones that make gestures to

teachers. Those are the kinds of kids they deal with

all day long. They go down to camp and here are kids

that cooperate, are eager to learn. They just love

it." (Fieldnotes, 3/5/90).

Before we left for our Tiny Things activity, Ms. Powell
distributed hand lenses to each student in the group. Then, as the
group walked along the trails, Ms. Powell encouraged them to examine

tiny things with their hand lenses. This was done in a very

informal manner, and everyone got involved in the search. Once

3

85

something was found, Ms. Powell would try to get everyone to examine
and discuss it as a group. I asked Ms. Powell the main thing that
she wanted the students to learn. She said she wanted the students
to learn how to use a hand lens.

Another activity I had a chance to witness was the Forest Walk,
led by Mr. Thomas. He had just retired from teaching science at
Loran the previous year. Like Mr. Johnson, he had attended the
science camp every year that it had been offered, so he knew his way
around the forest. As Mr. Thomas took his group of students through
the forest, he stopped along the way to note the different types of
trees and other foliage present there. Most of the information that
Mr. Thomas shared with the students dealt with why certain plants
were present in certain areas of the forest and not in others. The
primary things that Mr. Thomas told me he wanted the students to
learn were how to tell the age of a tree by counting the rings of a
cross—section of the trunk and how maple syrup was extracted from a
maple tree. He stressed these concepts by showing the students how
to use an instrument that tree scientists use to bore out a small
section of the tree trunk and examine it for its age. Mr. Thomas
also demonstrated how to tap a maple tree for syrup, and the
students even got a chance to taste some of the sticky, sweet liquid
that came out of one of the trees.

In Pond Study students learned about different kinds of plants
and animals that live in ponds, after which, students could examine

a drop of pond water under a microscope.

86

Native American Studies was another activity. It was taught by
a man who wore a complete Indian outfit. Students learned about
different kinds of clothing that Native Americans wore.

There was a Lake Walk where students and teachers walked around
the lake, discussing the ecology and the animals that live there.
There was a Prairie Walk where they did the same thing, only related
to prairies. There was Owl Pellets, where students could dissect an
owl pellet, and there were survival classes, snowshoeing, canoeing,
archery, and cross country skiing.

Altogether there were more than 10 activities. Even at night,
students could chose between activities such as a night hiking,
searching for owls, fishing, arts and crafts, environmental
education bingo, and environmentally-oriented computer games. Or
they could study or watch science-related TV, like programs from
Nova or a similar series.

After observing a few of these activities, I decided to try to
get the perspective of the camp experience as seen by a few of Mr.
Johnson's students. The following interview with Erin from
third-hour enriched science class is an example of the typical
perspectives shared by most of his students.

R: What are you doing today [at camp]?

E: Well sir, I just got up and got ready and ate

breakfast and the first activity for me was
listening to Mr. Neebler talk about Native

Americans, and then we went...

R: What did you learn about them?

9

87

E: We learned about culture and how his family lives,
he keeps the old traditions and still speaks his
natural language and everything. After that we
went cross-country skiing and we just went across
the field and skied around and ate lunch, then...

R: What did you have for lunch?

E: We had tacos for lunch with cinnamon cookies and
pineapple and then went back to our dorms, slept
or read for an hour and then went into a third
activity which for me was Owl Pellets and we
dissected these pellets and found bones and I
found a rat scull.

R: So far what do you think about the camp? Is it
fun and what are you going to tell the kids who
didn't go?

E: Yea, camp is real fun, I'll tell them they missed
out because for one thing you don't have to do all
the paper work you have to do at regular school,
and you get to visit with your friends everyday at
lunch.

R: And how is your relationships with your teachers
now that they are not so much teachers now, they
are kind of like...

E: It's real different seeing your teachers, like at
school most of them are always dressed in suits
and they're always real perfect and then you come
here and you see them in jeans and hats and
running around and acting like kids.

R: OK. Thanks a lot, I'll talk to you more later
(Interview, 3/7/90).

All eight of the students interviewed seemed to enjoy getting
out and having first-hand experiences with nature. This overall
feeling could be seen in their responses. For example, in the
interviews I asked several students, "What are you going to tell
your friends back at school who didn't come [about camp]?" Some of

the responses these students gave were the following.

88

Well it would really depend on the reason why they
didn't go. If it really wasn't an important reason, I
think they should have went to camp because it is a
better way to [learn]. Maybe you learn the same thing
at school, but like you couldn't go out to the lake and
have a hands on experience with it. Have a personal
experience.

Well, I really enjoy going out and studying the
outdoors and having the activities because they seem
really interesting. It was a good experience and they
should think about going next time.

Well, the activities are fun, so yeah, [they should
have come to camp] (Interviews, 3/7/90).

r

In addition, many of the students interviewed seemed to enjoy
seeing their teachers in a different light. Another example of this
overall feeling can be seen from this excerpt from an interview with

Marty.

R: How about your relationships with the teachers
here? Do you have a different relationship here
than when you're in school? Does it seem
different or is it still the same?

M: It's different, because in school they are like
the superior person and here they are like, they
don't know what they're doing as much as you do so
they can learn as well as you. So they are pretty
as much the same as you in camp (Interview,
3/7/90).

All in all, the science camp experience appeared to be a
success, although there were some things that the students shared
with me that were not positive. For example, many students
expressed displeasure with the bunks, the mandatory rest period, and
certain activities. Some of their comments were the following.

. . What I don't like is the bunks. They are
all hard and solid.

[What I don't like is] When you have to sit on
your bunk and do nothing [referring to the mandatory
rest period].

89

The things I liked were the Survival [Activity]

and the Tree Hike. The ones I disliked were the Pond

Study, the Owl [Pellets] Study, and this other thing I

don't remember [the name]. (Interviews conducted on

3/7/90).

The final issue that I want to shed some light on is what the
general science students did in science class while the enriched
science students were at the science camp. While I wasn't able to
observe first hand what the general science students did, I was able
to look at Mr. Johnson's planning book for those days. I found out
that on Monday of that week, Mr. Johnson planned to have the
students draw and label pictures of the plants and animals found on
various pages in Chapter V. This assignment was to be collected the
following day. On Tuesday, Mr. Johnson planned to have the students
list the major biomes and characteristics of some plants and animals
on a biome characteristics sheet that he made. On Wednesday, Mr.
Johnson went to camp and left the substitute the following
directions. For Wednesday, the substitute teacher was to have the
students read some articles in Science World magazine dealing with
current science problems and some possible solutions. The students
were also responsible for answering some questions about those
articles. On Thursday, the substitute was to take the students to
the library to get Reading Is Fundamental books, (a program designed
to enrich one's love of reading) and to permit them to read for the
last half of the class period. On Friday, the substitute was to
have the students copy the first sentence of each paragraph

(outlining) in chapter 5, as a review for the chapter 5 test coming

up the following week (Reconstructed Fieldnotes, 4/10/91).

’

90

Upon my return from science camp, I informally asked a few
students what they did the week I was away at camp. Five out of six
students responded by saying, in one way or another, "We did boring
stuff." (Fieldnotes, 3/12/89).

This section has shown another worthwhile experience that gave
the students who participated a wide variety of opportunities to
make observations, to analyze, classify, categorizing, interpret
data, and to think about the subject matter etc.; that possibly
helped build the relationship between the science students and their
science teacher; and that was offered to the enriched science
students but missed by the vast majority of general science

students.

The as ere

Earlier, Mr. Johnson's plan of moving certain students to the
back of the room was discussed, and it was pointed out that plan
appeared to have some unintended consequences related to Mr. Johnson
and the students asked to sit in the back of the room. The
following vignettes will illustrate how the number of students
sitting in the back of the room increased over the school year and
how their allegiance to each other and against Mr. Johnson grew.

Over the next few months, I kept an open mind about the notion
that conflicts were developing between Mr. Johnson and the students
sitting in the back of his fourth-hour general science class. I
also checked to see if this same type of conflict was developing in

Mr. Johnson's third-hour enriched science class. I found that

 

91

conflicts between Mr. Johnson and his third-hour enriched science
students were rare, although Mr. Johnson did make one of these
students sit in the back of the room as well. This student was
Marty. Unfortunately, I wasn't present the day that Mr. Johnson
moved Marty's seat. However, when I did notice Marty sitting in the
back, I asked, "Yeah, Marty, what happened? Why are you sitting in
the back of the room?"

"Oh, Mr. Johnson sent me back here for not doing any work."

"So what did he say?" I asked.

"He said, 'Why don't you sit back here? Maybe you can get more
work done'” (Fieldnotes, 12/5/89).

A few days later, I talked to Mr. Johnson about Marty. He
characterized Marty as having only marginal science skills. Quoting
Mr. Johnson, ”Marty is struggling in this class. I don't know how
Marty got placed in the enriched science class, but it's unfair to
Marty. He would do much better in the general science class"
(Fieldnotes, 12/9/89).

Much later in the year, Mr. Johnson did make another student
from this class sit in the back of the room. This student was
Theresa, one of the enriched students who frequently talked
excessively in class. Mr. Johnson warned her a couple of times
about her excessive talking. When that didn't work, he would make
her sit in the back of the room. However, Theresa always got good
grades on her assignments, and I assumed that that was the reason
her seat in the back was only temporary, lasting for one or two

days, at the most a week. For example, after sitting in the back a

92

day or two, Theresa would raise her hand and ask Mr. Johnson for
another chance to behave and show that she could keep quiet. Mr.
Johnson would usually give her another chance, especially when other
girls in the class coaxed him into it.

As stated earlier, the relationship between Mr. Johnson and
fourth-hour general science students sitting in the back of the room
was a completely different story. The students' numbers continued
to grow, and so did their conflicts with Mr. Johnson. The following
vignette illustrates this.

One day, when I entered Mr. Johnson's fourth-hour general
science classroom, I noticed Mr. Johnson standing at the front of
the room with his arms folded. After a few minutes, he said, ”I'm
still waiting for you people to settle down."

"Good luck," came a voice from the back of the room.

”Yeah, that will be the day,” said someone else.

"You'll be waiting a long time," said Dan, although in a
somewhat low and cautious voice.

Finally, after waiting for almost five minutes, Mr. Johnson
asked the class to open their books to page 137. "We're going to do
exercise A on that page” he announced.

”I did that already,” Sam remarked.

"Yeah, I already turned that in too," Dan said in support.

"I don't think so,” Mr. Johnson said continuing to present the
assignment. As the class got ready to do the assignment, I noticed
two students who were not paying attention to Mr. Johnson's

instructions. They were busy writing notes to each other. Karen

93

wrote on a piece of paper, folded it, and, as soon as Mr. Johnson
wasn't looking, placed the note on the floor beside her and used her
foot to move it to the adjoining row. Doris, who sat two rows over,
checked first to be sure Mr. Johnson was still not looking, then
picked up the note. The same tactic was used by the two girls
again, only in reverse. Their note passing went on for quite some
time. Eventually, Mr. Johnson caught on to what happening, but he
didn't appear sure of who was doing it. He asked Karen if she was
involved, and Karen denied it. Finally, Mr. Johnson caught Karen in
a position that she could not deny it. He looked down at his
seating chart and said, ”Karen, take your books and sit in the
back."

"Why me?" Karen protested. ”I wasn't the only one doing it."

"You were the only one caught," Mr. Johnson replied.

"That's not fair," Karen shouted as she stomped back to her
newly assigned seat.

"That will be enough of that,” Mr. Johnson said calmly. "I
don't want to have to call you mother and tell her how you've been
acting."

”Don't be calling my mother at work," Karen screamed at the top
of her voice. "You've already got her in trouble calling her there.
She doesn't want to talk to you. She already knows how you are; I
told her!"

"I wouldn't call if you would do what you're supposed to," Mr.
Johnson replied softly.

"Just don't call,” Karen repeated again sharply.

 

94

Mr. Johnson, apparently trying not to let this get out of hand,
replied calmly, "Just sit back there and do your work and I won't
have to."

"I hate you," Karen proclaimed.

"I hate him, too," came another voice from the back of the
room.

"I can't stand him either,” said Dan in a low voice.

After this incident Sam raised his hand and asked, "Are these
papers going to be graded?"

"Yes, we will be grading them at the end of hour," Mr. Johnson
answered without looking up from his desk.

"These are going to be graded?” another student inquired. Mr.
Johnson nodded his head. From the back of the room, another student
said, ”Did you say that these are going to be graded?" This
question was asked again and again, evidently to bug Mr. Johnson.

When it became time to exchange papers for grading the
assignment, I noted another common occurrence. Dan, Karen, and Sam
worked it out so they received each other's papers for grading.
Then, when Mr. Johnson read the correct answers, they simply wrote
in the correct answers for their friends.

When it became time to hand the corrected paper into Mr.
Johnson, an unfortunate thing happened, some candy fell out of the
pouch Dan was wearing around his waist. Mr. Johnson noticed it and

said, "Why don't you bring that up here," referring to Dan's candy.

95

”No, that's OK; I think I'll keep it," Dan replied, placing the
candy that had fallen out back into the pouch and tying the pouch
shut.

”Come on, bring it up here; I'll keep it for you until after
school," Mr. Johnson requested softly.

"I wasn't eating it, so you can't take it,” Dan stated
defiantly.

"Yeah, he wasn't eating it," Steve said chipping in his
support.

"That's right," said someone else.

This debate continued for several minutes. Soon, everyone in
the room was looking to see what would transpire between Mr. Johnson
and Dan. I felt an eerie tension developing between the students on
Dan's side and Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson walked back and stood next to Dan's desk. "Give me
the pouch or go to the office," he said in an soft tone. Dan just
glared at Mr. Johnson. After a minute or so, Dan gave the pouch to
Mr. Johnson, but his debate about it continued.

"That's it-out! Out! Go to the office," Mr. Johnson shouted!
Dan walked out the door.

"You can't get away with that,” Sam said in support of Dan.

"Yeah, we'll sue,” someone else shouted from the back of the
room.

"That's not right. I bet you I wouldn't let him take my candy

if I had some,” Karen proclaimed.

96

Mr. Johnson obviously irritated said. ”The school rule states
that students cannot have candy in class, period. So just quiet
down.”

The students' remarks finally did stop, but I felt that this
conflict had caused the tension between the students sitting in the
back and Mr. Johnson to reach it's highest point of the year.

After this class, Mr. Johnson told me that he would have given
Dan the candy back after school if Dan hadn't made such a big deal
out of it. Now, he was going to let the office take care of it.
"Well," I asked Mr. Johnson, ”Dan seemed to have a lot of support
from his friends, didn't he?"

”Yeah,” Mr. Johnson replied, "I can't understand why they act
that way. You know there are some students in here who never give
me any trouble. It's the same ones all the time.” (Fieldnotes May
2, 1989).

Mr. Johnson was right; it was the same ones all the time. And
as the year progressed, that became even clearer. Most of the
students who sat near the front gave Mr. Johnson very little
trouble. These students always appeared to comply with Mr.
Johnson's instructions. And in return, Mr. Johnson usually called
on these students when he wanted to keep a discussion going or when
he wanted a student to do a special favor for him, such as grade
papers or run an errand. The students in the back of the room
always appeared to cause trouble for Mr. Johnson. In addition, they

appeared to be able to cause some of the other students in the

97

classroom to align with them (in relation to their participation in
mischievous behavior against Mr. Johnson's authority).

The vignette presented here further illustrates my belief that
Mr. Johnson' tactic of moving certain students to the back of the
room appeared to have some unintended consequences. To make this
clearer, I have included a copy of the seating chart as it stood
near the end of the school year (see Figures 8 and 9). I have
highlighted the students who frequently were involved in conflicts
with Mr. Johnson. With this as an aid, I hope to show that the
classroom appeared to be divided (with a few exceptions) into three
groups. Those students who were frequently involved in conflicts
with Mr. Johnson sat in or near the rear of the room (alienated
group), those students who never were involved in such conflicts sat
nearer to the front (academically motivated group), and the students
who did not fit into either of these two categories were the
students that I came to call the swing group. I called them the
swing group because if incited by the students who sat in or near
the rear of the room (alienated group), these students would support
the activities of the students in the back of the room. Examples of
this were found during the gum chewing escapade and during the pouch
of candy conflict. From my Fieldnotes I identified seven other
conflicts that members of this group of students supported in one
way or another.

From my observations of Mr. Johnson's enriched and general
science classes over the last few months of the school year, it was

apparent that there was a difference between these two classes in

 

98

terms of the atmosphere of the class. This difference appeared to
be related to the relationship that Mr. Johnson had developed with
the third-hour enriched science students versus his relationship
with the fourth-hour general science students. For example, when
Mr. Johnson gave the enriched class an assignment, the students
would do it without question. In fact, sometimes, I notice a few
students, mostly girls, who would do all their work and volunteer
for more. They would volunteer to answer questions in the book that
were not even assigned. In such cases, according to most enriched
students, special favors were subtly and indirectly passed to the
entire class as a whole. For example, the class would be given fun
assignments, like learning Morse code, or more opportunities to work
in small groups. Perhaps this can be illustrated better by a
vignette.

On one occasion, as Mr. Johnson was giving a lecture to the
enriched science students on how the hawk population helps to keep
the mice pepulation in balance, Concetta appeared to be asking
questions just to keep the lesson going. Mr. Johnson appeared to
like students who asked a lot of questions because it gave him a
chance to share his wealth of knowledge with the class. Concetta
seemed to know this.

"In the book they use the term 'vole.’ What is a vole?"
Concetta asked Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson replied, "A vole is any of the rodents resembling
rat or mice. The only difference is that voles usually have shorter

tails . . ."

 

99

After Mr. Johnson's extended interlude about voles, he
continued with his lecture, which included graphing the hawk and
mice populations, Concetta then asked another question, ”What is a
legend?"

Mr. Johnson answered, "A caption. You'll usually find it on
all graphs. It explains what things on the graph mean. For example

After Mr. Johnson's extended interlude about legends, he again
continued with his lecture, and Concetta continued to ask questions
at the appropriate time. After this lecture, Mr. Johnson allowed
the class to socialize quietly for the rest of the hour, which '
amounted to about five minutes (Fieldnotes, 1/13/89).

Student-teacher interactions such as these were important in
developing a good relationship with Mr. Johnson and thus showed
acceptable ways that students could exact some control over the
direction of classroom activities and the atmosphere of the class.

I observed these good-natured interactions between the students in
the enriched science class and Mr. Johnson repeatedly.

From this and other sources of evidence presented later, I
concluded that the enriched science students seemed to have a good
relationship with Mr. Johnson.

In contrast, the students in the general science class appeared
to have more conflicts with Mr. Johnson. The following vignette
further illustrates this.

When Mr. Johnson gave the same lesson on the ecological balance

of the hawk and mice, I counted four disturbances that caused Mr.

100

Johnson to stop the lesson and discipline students. Finally, Mr.
Johnson turned to the class and said, ”If anyone here doesn't like
it in this class, let me know and I'll make arrangement to get you
out to here. And this semester I'll be giving out more 4's and 5's
in citizenship, and you know what that means-~no Cedar Point trip."

As Mr. Johnson spoke, Steve answered, "I don't care, I don't
want to go anyway.” Mr. Johnson overheard his comment and said,
"How would you like a point for talking without permission?" Other
students then began mumbling negative comments, with the noise
appearing to get out of hand. Mr. Johnson stood in front of the
class with his arms folded and said nothing. After a few more
minutes the classroom got quiet again. Mr. Johnson tried to restart
the lesson, but the disturbance had apparently taken its toll on the
class. Many students were now slouching in their chairs and not
paying much attention to what Mr. Johnson was saying. I looked up
at the clock. There were only five minutes left in the class
period. Mr. Johnson made the students in the class sit quietly in
their chairs until the bell rang. I thought to myself, "This class
didn't get much work done today.”

Near the end of the school year, I asked Mr. Johnson some
questions about his relationship with the two science classes. The
following is an excerpt from that interview.

R: Tell me how you enjoyed your year in the two
classes?

T: I had about the best year I had in about 10 years
this last year, primarily because of the two
enriched sections that I had--super kids that were
in there .

101

How did your students respond to the workload
because you put a lot of work on them everyday.
They were busy doing vocabulary or labs or
readings.

The kids in the enriched section did not complain
too much about the amount of work. The kids in
the general section sometimes it seems with the
smallest task they complain about it. I don't
know how they expect to learn anything without
doing some work. I can't figure that part out

How would you describe your relationship with your
third hour enriched science class and your fourth
hour general science class?

I had a tremendous relationship with my third hour
enriched science class. We tease each other, but
if you are open and warm to them, they give it
back. They are very good that way. My fourth
hour general science class was my worst class this
year. Kids were very slow. Many of them didn't
care, they were disruptive. I did have some
bright kids in that class but not many.

How do you think the students in your third hour
enriched science class got along with each other?

The enriched kids had a good rapport with each
other. They don't seem to have any trouble
relating to each other.

And how did your students in your fourth hour
general science class get along with each other?

They could be friends one day and enemies the
next. They tattle on each other and put each
other down .

Let me ask you about the kids in your fourth-hour
science class. It seems to me that there was
three groups of students in that fourth hour and I
want to explain it to you. The classroom appeared
to be divided (with a few exceptions) into three
groups. Those students who were frequently
disruptive sat at the rear of the room, those
students who never got into trouble sat nearer to
the front, and the students who did not fit into
either of these two categories sat in the middle.
This middle group of students I called the swing
group. I called them the swing group because if

102

incited by the students who sat in the rear of the
room, these students would support the activities
of the students in the back of the room. So that
is how I saw the groups in that class. How do you
feel about this assessment?

T: Yeah. Pretty good assessment.

R: So what do you do to try and reach the kids who
sat in the back, the disruptive ones?

T: I'm not really sure that there is much that can be
done with them. You can suspend them from class,
but that's a lot of paperwork and lots of grief on
the teacher's part. And there is always some
parent back there who thinks their child is
perfectly legitimate, a perfect little angel and
why are you picking on my kid. And so you get to
a point where you think rightfully or not, if that
kid wants to sleep let him sleep. And I kind of
end up doing this--if the kid is doing something
that is hurting just himself and not disturbing
some other kid I just let him do it. I guess I'm
a firm believer in letting them make the choice
and they live with the choice they make which may
or may not be right but that is the way I do it.

I wish there was a better way . . . (Interview,
6/6/90).

Mr. Johnson's comments about the rapport he had with his two
classes and the rapport that each class had with each other made me
curious about the rapport between the students in the two science
classes. My curiosity was cured the last day of class during the
change of classes. I was headed to Mr. Johnson's third-hour
enriched science class, when I heard a tremendous commotion in the
hall. A large group of students had gathered to watch two boys slug
it out. All I could see was the boys' bodies slamming into the
student lockers on the side of the hall.

"Damn it, kick his butt," I heard as I struggled to move to the
front of the crowd for a better look. As I got closer, I could see

that it was Sam fighting another boy whom I did not recognize. I

103

could hear the other students rooting for the boy they wanted to
win. It was clear that each boy had his own group of supporters.
Then it hit me, I might be expected to break this thing up.
Fortunately, I did not have to. A teacher pushed her way through
the crowd and broke up the fight (Fieldnotes, 6/10/90).

When I got to Mr. Johnson's science class, the fight was the
subject of the conversation between the students that day. I had no
clue what the whole thing was about, but this is how Karen explained
it to some students in her class.

”You mean they just started swinging at each other?" Cindy
asked.

"Yeah,” said Karen, "they've been at each other threats for
days. It started in the office. John (whom I found out was a
member of Mr. Johnson's first-hour enriched science class) was
called to the office. Dan and Sam were already there. Sam called
John a fag and John replied, 'You're just jealous because I've got a
brain and you don't.' The next day, I overheard Sam and Dan
discussing how they were going to 'get' John the last day of school.
They tried to get John to fight yesterday, but he wouldn't. So
today, I saw them arguing in the hall. That's when the fighting
started."

I asked Karen if fights between enriched and general students
were common. Her reply was that enriched students were always
getting beaten up because they are so preppy (Fieldnotes, 6/10/90).

Clearly, I could now see that enriched and general science

students coalesced into different social groups. Each group

104

appeared to have its own social norms and beliefs, through which
they both interpreted and created their own world both inside and

outside of the science classroom.

Students' Aftftudes Iowafd Their Sgience Class

When I first started this study, I speculated that there might
be differences in the attitudes of the students in the two classes
toward their science class. To help me confirm this speculation,
throughout the entire school year I periodically asked each member
of the enriched and general science class as a whole to respond to
structured questions relating to their attitudes towards their
science. The students wrote the questions and their responses on a
sheet of paper and I collected them. After reading all of their
responses, I analyzed them and constructed tables of their responses
to key questions that illuminated their attitudes toward their
science class, concepts of themselves as a science learners, and
perceptions of their science teacher. These tables were generated
from the responses of all the students in each science class.

To illustrate the students' attitudes toward their science
class, I asked the students to write responses to these questions:
(a) "Science class makes me feel . . ." (b) "How did the grade you
received this six weeks, 12/8/89, affect your attitude toward your
science class?” (c) ”How do you feel about being placed in an
enriched or general science class?” The students' responses were
coded and presented in percentages that are reflected in Table 1

(Appendix H).

105

The data in Table 1 show that a substantially higher percentage
of general science students showed evidence of having less-positive
attitudes toward their science class than did enriched science
students.

To illustrate the students' concepts of themselves as science
learners, I asked the students to write responses to these
questions: (a) "Does being in enriched/general classes, such as
enriched/general science, give you more or less confidence in your
ability to compete with other students?” (b) "Why do you think you
were placed in the enriched/general science class and not the
general/enriched science class?" (c) ”As a Loran science student,
do you see yourself as above average, average, or below average?"
Again the students' responses were coded and presented in
percentages that are reflected in Table 2 (Appendix I).

The data in Table 2 show that a substantially higher percentage
of general science students show evidence of having less—positive
concepts of themselves as science learners than did enriched science
students.

To illustrate how students felt about their science teacher, I
[asked the students to respond to these statements: (a) "The teacher
treats all students fairly.” (b) "The teacher uses the discipline
code fairly.” (c) "Ideas and opinions of students are treated with
respect.” The students' responses were coded and presented in
percentages that are reflected in Table 3 (Appendix J).

The data in Table 3 show that a substantially higher percentage

of general science students showed evidence of having less-positive

106

feelings about their science teacher than did enriched science
students.

Before I use the data in these tables to interpret the findings
I want to make clear the limitations of this data. Although I can
say that these findings represent whole class views and not merely
individual views, some things I asked about, such as how they saw
themselves as Loran science students, why they thought they were
placed in an enriched or general science classes, and possibly
others, are attitudes that probably developed over a long period of
time. Thus, my data could not help us be certain about the role of
placement in the development of these long-term attitudes. The data
lacked the necessary controls and the longitudinal information about
these attributes in students needed to make these conclusions. In
spite of these cautions, patterns emerged that allowed me to begin
to interpret students' attitudes within the two classes.

What I could determine from the data in these tables is that
different kinds of attitudes tended to cluster around certain
placement groups. In other words, students with similar kinds of
attitudes seemed to be in the same science class. In other words, I
found that student attitudes in the enriched science class and
general science class clustered in the following patterns. Students
in the enriched science class had substantially more positive
concepts of themselves as science learners than general science
students did. Students in the enriched science class had
substantially more positive feelings about their science teacher

than general science students did. And students in the enriched

107

science class had substantially more positive attitudes towards
their science class than general science students did.

To strengthen and substantiate the data in the tables, I
conducted interviews with each member of my target group. In these
interviews I asked the target students about some of the responses
they wrote to my structured questions.

In the interview that I had with Dan and his parents, I asked
Dan about his written response to one of my questions. When asked
to complete the statement, "Science class makes me feel . . . , Dan
responded, ”. . . like it's a waste of time because all I want to do
is be a basketball player" (Question asked 10/24/89). The following
is an excerpt from that interview that I had with Dan and his
parents.

R: . . . one thing that I want you to respond to is

the question that I ask you on 10/24/89. "Science
class make me feel . . . " Your response to that

was, ”. . . like it's a waste of time because all

I want to do is be a basketball player.” Tell me

about this response?

D: You know what I mean, I don't see why we have to

learn that stuff. It's boring and it has nothing

to do with what I want to be.

M: You better start taking your class seriously or
you'll never amount to anything.

F: I don't see where it makes any difference. That
school is worthless anyhow, what do you expect the
boy to do?

R: Why do you feel the school is worthless?

F: Because I pay taxes and all I can see those
teachers doing is sitting on their asses, most of
the time anyway. They never sent home any
homework but they are always complaining about how
hard their job is. (Interview conducted 3/15/90).

108

There was a very important message in Dan's perception of his
science class. That message was that his science teacher was not
teaching anything of value to him. In addition, Dan's father's
comments showed how he felt about Dan's teachers and school. Dan's
father felt that most of the teachers at the school did very little,
and the fact that they rarely sent any homework home with Dan proved
in his mind that most of them did very little.

In the interview I had with Sam and his parents, I asked Sam
about his written response to the same question asked Dan: ”Science
class makes me feel . . ." Sam responded, ”. . . unhappy because of
my grades” (Question asked 10/24/89). The following is an excerpt
from that interview that I had with Sam and his parents.

R: . . . do you remember when you were coming into

your class, do you remember seeing that leaf
collection stuff that the enriched kids were
doing?

S: Yeah.

R: Now that is something that your class didn't get a

chance to do. Would you have liked to have done
that?

S: Yeah, because I thought that would be better than

writing out a whole chapter out of a book. To
bring in some leaves and examine them and stuff
like that.

R: How do you guys (referring to Sam's parents) feel
about something like a leaf collection project and
one class having an opportunity to do it and the
other class does not?

M: I can see what Sam is saying, the enriched class,
it sounds like they were doing scientific things
where Sam's class was doing more book work and

really benefit in science as far as like the leaf
collection. I know he would have enjoyed it, he

 

109

has done stuff like that in the past, he is very
(outdoorsy) anyhow and I think that he would have
enjoyed it.

R: And the science camp, remember when he (Mr.
Johnson) talked about that? Why didn't you go?

S: Because I knew Mr. Johnson was going and I thought
it was too much stuff for that week.

R: So you thought that to sell candy and stuff like
that, you had to sell 50 boxes or something like
that, it was too much just to go for a week? And
the fact that Mr. Johnson was going to go, too,
did that have any effect?

8: Yeah, probably most of it. I still don't care for
Mr. Johnson. I run into him in the halls and
stuff, because me and my classmates we had a group
and we would go up to the library and he (Mr.
Johnson) would follow us up there to make sure we
were going up there.

R: Why do you think that only one kid out to your
whole class went to camp?

S: I would rather do the routine work than go to the
science camp because Mr. Johnson was up there for

a couple of days.

R: I want to just read some of the responses you had
on some of these questions. “Science class makes
me feel. . . ” And you put down, ”. . . unhappy
because of my grades." Tell me about that?

8: Yeah, every paper I turned in was a C or lower and
I couldn't understand it because I guess because
he said (Mr. Johnson) my penmanship or I didn't
state the words correctly and he was marking me
down for that (Interview conducted 6/16/90).

Sam appeared to have a negative perception of his science
class. He felt that they did all book work and nothing exciting.
Sam's mother could see Sam's point and felt that he might have done
better if more exciting things were offered. Sam didn't like Mr.
Johnson. He felt that Mr. Johnson did not trust him and appeared to

mark him down for things that were not related to science. His

110

dislike for Mr. Johnson appeared to get in the way of his decision
to go to camp.

In the interview I had with Kathy and her mother, I asked Kathy
about her written response to one of my questions. The question
was, ”How do you feel about being placed in the general science
class?" Kathy responded, ”I think I should be in enriched because
in my last year's classes I got all ”As" except for one" (Question
and response done 9/14/89). The following is an excerpt from the
interview that I had with Kathy and her mother.

R: . . . Kathy, why did you answer this question this

way? How do you feel? Do you want to be in
enriched science?

K: [Shaking her head to indicate, 'No.'] Most of the

preppies are in there. They act like they are .

[Kathy's mother stops her from saying more].

R: No, I want to hear it. They act like they are
what?

K: 80 goody-two shoes. Like they are everything
because they are in enriched science class.

R: How does that make you feel? Putting some kids in
enriched and putting other kids in general?

K: They should give people a chance. They don't know
what they can achieve until they give them a
chance.

R: Do you think when they separate like that it
allows kids to be ”preppy?"

K: Yeah.

R: And how do you (referring to Kathy's mother) feel
about that?

M: I think that it causes a real danger for the ones
in the enriched class looking down on the others
ones as not being as smart as they are. It is a
definite tracking problem when you start getting
into that (Interview, 6/15/90).

111

In the interview I had with Steve and his mother and father, I

asked Steve about his written response to one of my questions. When

asked to complete this statement, "Science class makes me feel

.," Steve responded, ". . . bored unless I am doing labs"

(Question asked 10/24/89). The following is an excerpt from that

interview that I had with Steve and his mother (M).

R:

. on 10/24/89, I asked you this question and
asked you to fill in the rest. You wrote, bored
unless I am doing labs. Can you tell me what that
means and why labs are exempt from being boring?
Because you get to work with your friends and you
get to share ideas and you get to talk and look in
the microscope and study different stuff and the
work that we do is just book work and we can't
talk to anybody.

What do you mean book work?

You have to write the first sentence of each
paragraph or.

How do you feel about writing the first sentence
of each paragraph?

It is boring doing that because there is a lot of
paragraphs. It would be like 40 sentences.

And so you saw that as what?
Boring work.

Labs you didn't see as boring work. Is that
correct?

Yes.
You saw that as?
Something fun that you get to do.

. were you happy with the grade that you got
in science?

No.

112

What would you say about it?
The grade that I got?
Yes, after you got it, how did you feel.

Mad and discouraged because that meant that I had
to repeat seventh grade.

How did you feel about your science class?
Made me dislike it more.

. how would you characterize your sons
experience in his science class?

Traumatic. Meaning that he was discouraged to the
point where he didn't even want to try and I know
his capabilities of doing the work were good.

He shared that with you?
Yes.

Upon hearing about this how did that make you
feel?

I questioned the way the class was being taught.
I spoke with the counselor and the counselor in
turn spoke with the teacher. They were saying
that Steve could very well do the work, but that
he wasn't trying. Many times I know that it is
the way that the subject is presented to the
student. If you can't present a subject to a
student where it would get their attention right
off the bat, you lose them. It has to have
interest to them. Even science which some kids
think is boring. If it is brought to them in a
way where they could enjoy that class, they would
get a lot out of it.

Did you share this with the counselor and the
teacher? Did you talk over the phone or have a
conference?

Yes, I went to the school. His response was well
let me look at Steve's record. He responded that
Steve is a very bright student and we just think
that if he works a little harder at it, it won't
be a problem. But at the same time knowing
Steve's capabilities, they seem to overlook that,
yes he can do it, but there is a problem and a
reason why he isn't.

113

. you mentioned to me that you weren't aware
that there are two different science classes. One
enriched and one that is general. Now that you
know about it from me, what are your thoughts on
that?

My thoughts is who determines that the students is
general and who determines that the student is
enriched. What are the recommendations based on?

Knowing that your child was put in general science
class how does that make you feel?

It makes me feel that he has been slighted because
I know that he is a bright child.

What do you think about that fact that they didn't
inform you that there are two different levels?

I think that they have taken education into their
own hands and they are teaching and dealing with
the problem the way that they think it should be
dealt with without the parent even being
considered. Why is it that my child is there, and
why is it that the parents are involved after the
fact. After the problem has gotten so far that
your child fails (Interview done June 3, 1990)?

In the interview I had with Mary and her mother, I asked Mary

about her written response to one of my questions. The question

was, "Does being in general science, give you more or less

confidence in your ability to compete with other science students

and why?"

Mary responded, "It gives me more confidence because I

can get easy A's; the people I know that are in enriched classes

don't get A's a lot” (Question asked 11/28/89). The following is an

excerpt from the interview that I had with Mary.

R:

The first question that I want to interpret is
this question that I ask you on 11/28/89. "Does
being in general science, give you more or less
confidence in your ability to compete with other
science students and why?" Your response to that
was, "It give me more confidence because I can get

114

easy A's, the people I know that are in enriched
classes don't get A's a lot." Tell me about this
response.

The friends that I have are in enriched and they
got B's and 0'3 and I was in general science and
it was easy for me to get A's.

So it was easy for you to get A's so being in
general science was what?

It wasn't hard.
Was it challenging?
No.

Did you enjoy not having the challenge and getting
the easy A's?

Sometimes. Sometimes it got a little boring too.

I guess the next. What I want to ask about is how
important is the grades to you?

It is important because like if you get bad
grades, it closes the door.

. would you say that kids that are in enriched
science class think that they are smart and kids
that are in general science class don't?

Yeah, some of them. Not all of them.

Talk about that. What does that mean. Your
comment there. Yes, talk about that.

Well they just act smarter or something.

Act smarter, explain what you mean by that. To
who, or when? Give an example.

I don't know.

You said that they act smarter. What did you mean
by that?

They are just sort of nerdy, but not....

Who is?

115

The kids in enriched classes.

Who says that they are nerdy? Is this something
that enriched kids say of themselves, or is this
something that someone else says?

General science classes say that they are nerdy.
The general science class says that the enriched
class is nerdy. And what do the enriched kids say
about the general science kids?

I don't know. They don't really talk about it.
They've never talked about it?

No.

. Mary, would you say that when class is going
on, there are kids in your general science class
that always seem to distract Mr. Johnson. They
make noises or whistle or try to disrupt class.

Do you notice that?
Yeah.

How do you feel about being in a class where
students do that kind of stuff?

It doesn't bother me.

It doesn't bother you. Would you like to be in a
class where everybody was trying to learn and not
trying to disrupt learning?

Yeah.

Do you think there is a problem with your science
class?

Yeah. It is really boring.

Why do you think it is boring?

Uh, (long pause) I'm not learning too much.
Would you like to be in enriched science class?

Yeah . . . (Interview, 6/30/90).

116

Thus, for Mary, being in an enriched science class meant being
part of a different group of students, the preppy or nerdy group.
Mary made another thing clear. Enriched science students, she
explained, are considered good in science, while most general
science students are not good in science. But, while the notion of
being an enriched science student meant being thought of as "someone
good in science," it also meant something unappealing to this
general science student--being a preppy or a nerd.

The next interview was with Erin. Erin's written response to
the question "Science class makes me feel . . ." was, "Science class
makes me feel sort of smart, because I am so good at it. Sometimes
I don't like it" (Question asked 10/24/89). The following is an
excerpt of the interview with Erin.

R: What is your present attitude toward science
class?

E: Well to me science is really fun, but it just
depends on what subject you are doing and how
you're doing it. This year I haven't really done
anything all that interesting but I still think
science can be fun.

R: What kind of things do you think could be more
interesting for you to do in science class?

E: Well, I like to do experiments more with things
instead of like reading out of the book and doing
little things. I like to experiment. So I want
to know more about what I'm dealing with. I would
like to know more than the book. The book is all
right and everything but I like things that are
more fun and interesting.

R: How has the teacher affected your attitude toward
science this year?

117

E: He hasn't really affected my attitude, he didn't
really make it interesting because he didn't deal
with a lot of stuff but, I like science I don't
really worry about the teacher or the class or
anything. I just like to deal with the subject
and ignore everything else. So the teacher didn't
really affect science class for me very much.

R: Did you have this attitude prior to coming to this
class?

E: Yes, because my teacher in 6th grade, she made us
do work on our own and made it fun for ourselves
so like if it is not fun for you then you can put
it in your head and make it fun or something
instead of looking forward for the class to make
it fun. When you get home you can probably do
exercises on your own.

R: So do you think that when you go to High School
that you'll take more science classes than
required or when you go to college will you pick a
science career?

E: When I go to high school, more than likely I might
pick more science classes than required because it
is fun to me, but I will pick other classes that I
need like English and Math and whatever but in
college I don't think I would pick science because
that is not the subject that I'm going into.

R: How do you think being in the enriched class
versus being in a general class has affected your
attitude toward science?

E: The difference hasn't really affected my attitude
toward science because to me no matter whether you
are in general or enriched, you should still have
the same attitude about science or whatever
subject. You can still do the same things in both
classes. So the difference doesn't really affect
me (Interview conducted 6/3/90).
The next interview was with Concetta. 'When I asked her to
respond to the question, ”Does being in general science give you
more or less confidence in your ability to compete with other

science students and why?" her written response was, "It give me

more confidence because it helps me know that I am smart enough"

118

(Question asked 11/28/89). The following is an excerpt from the

interview that I had with Concetta.

R:

Concetta how has this year's science class
effected your attitude toward science?

It has taught me a little bit more, but it hasn't
really changed my attitude because I have always
liked science. I think that is mostly because
when my Dad was in high school he worked at Loran
Nature Center and he taught me a lot about it.
About wildlife and everything. I have always
liked wildlife.

Is your dad a professor?
No my dad is a lawyer.

. it sounds like you have plans when you go to
college or after college to be in a science
related career. Is that correct?

Yes, I want to be a marine biologist.
How did you come to this decision?

Well I used to want to be an entomologist, but I
sort of got sick of bugs and stuff and I have
always been interested in fish and mostly I like
whales and sharks. I am being a teen zoo keeper
this summer at Potter's Park zoo this summer.

When do you start that?

I took classes last weekend and I am taking two
more classes this weekend and I just do it through
the whole summer.

How did you get involved with that. Did someone
come up to you and ask you to do it?

My friend Janet were talking about it and then she
got three applications and she asked me if I
wanted one, and I said yes. I filled out the
application. I had to have my science teacher
write me a letter of recommendation. Which he
did.

Mr. Johnson wrote you a recommendation?

119
Yes. Then we sent it in and I just started going
to classes.

Great. What has this year's science class
provided you with?

It has just mostly given me more knowledge about
the outside world.

Have you enjoyed this year's science class?

Yes. Everyone goes, "Concetta how can you like
science." I just do.

Do your friends say that to you?
Yes. Some of my friends.
Do you get a lot of parental support?

Yes my parents always encourage me to do well in
school and it is weird, but it just comes easy for
me. I have to work a little bit in English once
in a while because it sometimes is hard for me,
but I have pretty much always done well in science
(Interview conducted 6/3/90).

The following is an excerpt from the interview I had with

Marty.

R:

Marty, what is your present attitude about science
class now that it is at the end of the year?

I like to go to this class because we learn more
stuff.

What grades do you get in science class?

B's mostly, I've got three A's and the rest B's
and C's.

What do you think would happen if they put you in
general science class? Would your attitude toward
science class change?

Yes, because being in an enriched science makes
you work harder.

What other things in this class have helped shape
your attitude toward science class?

120

I don't know.

Did the activities you went on and stuff like that
help?

No, just being in the enriched class makes you
work harder.

Are all your classes enriched?
No, this is the only one I've got.
And you really like it?

Yeah, I guess. I don't like science so I don't
know how I got into it.

You don't like science?
Its not my favorite subject, but its not my worst.
Do you like it though?

Yeah, I guess. It is more demanding than other
stuff.

. if you get to pick your career, would you
want it to be in science?
a
No, I want to be a sports broadcaster .
(Interview conducted 6/3/90).

When I asked Theresa to response to the following, "How do you

feel about being placed in the general science class?," her respond

was, "I feel very smart" (Question and response done 9/14/89). The

following is an excerpt from the interview that I had with Theresa.

R:

. so how long have you been in enriched
science?

Just this year.
What were you in before that?
Regular science with Mr. Woody.

So what made you able to move from general science
to enriched science?

121

T: I don't know, I think I got an A last time in
science.

R: So you got an A last time and that kind of pushed
you up?

T: B's mostly.

R: What do you think was the difference in your
general science class and what is it like in your
7th grade enriched science class?

T: Right now it is more work than its been in 6th
grade cause in 6th grade we didn't do that many
things. Mr. Woody didn't do as many things as Mr.
Johnson.

R: Anything else besides just the work load?

T: We didn't do any lab or anything like that, it was
mostly boring things.

R: Do enriched and general students think about their
work differently?

T: Yeah, they seem more dedicated to it.
R: Which students?

T: The enriched, they seem more interested in it and
in regular class they don't really think about it.

R: So how would you feel if they put you back in
general class?

T: I don't know. I would probably feel kind of mad

because I wanted to be in enriched all the time
(Interview conducted 3/8/90).

The responses of the enriched science target students seemed to
suggest that they had more positive academic attitudes toward
science class ("I'm good in science”) than the general science
target students. This is not surprising, considering they were told
by their school, their teacher, and other students that they were

smarter in science. It was especially interesting to note the

difference in general self-concept. Enriched science target

122

students appeared to have a more positive self-concept of themselves
and their abilities not only in academic subjects, but in general as
well, than did general science target students.

Unlike the tables that represented whole class views, these
interviews do not gauge attributes of the classes themselves, but
rather attitudes of a few individuals in those classes. My intent
was to use these interviews to support the findings from the tables.
While it is likely that from these interviews one might infer some
things about how the students in the different science class
attitudes differed, no conclusions can be drawn from this data

alone.

Summa of Cha te

Some of the key differences between Mr. Johnson's enriched and
general science classes that I found during this study were related
to the differences in the experiences that the students in these
classes had. For example, the enriched science class was assigned
more academic tasks that allowed them to think about subject matter,
while the general science class was frequently assigned tasks that
did not require much thought about subject matter. The enriched
science class was allowed to work in small groups more frequently
than was the general science class. The enriched science class was
provided more opportunities to engage in special activities (leaf
collection, science camp, morse code, etc.) than was the general
science class. The enriched science class worked in an atmosphere

that was cooperative, nurturing, and not disruptive, while the

123

general science students worked in an atmosphere that through time
became frequently uncooperative, alienating, and disruptive.

Another key difference found was in the perceptions held by
school personnel and students in relation to the behavior and
academic ability of the students in these two classes. Generally,
the students in the enriched science class were perceived as
academically capable of doing the work, committed to doing the work,
and cooperative when asked to do the work. On the other hand, the
majority of general science students were perceived as less
academically capable of doing the work, uncommitted to doing the
work, and uncooperative when asked to do the work.

Another difference was seen in the commitment students in the
two classes place on completing academic assignments and doing well
on them. Enriched science students appeared committed to completing
their assignments and doing them well, while only a small group of
general science students appeared equally as committed. This
commitment was reflective in the grades they received on
assignments.

The most central finding was the contrast between the
relationship that developed over time between the students in the
two classes and the teacher. The relationship that developed
between the teacher and the students in the enriched science class
appeared cooperative and respectful of each other. The relationship
that developed between the teacher and the students in the general
science class was such that social groups appeared to strengthen.

One group of students (academically motivated group) appeared to

124

developed a cooperative relationship with the teacher. Another
group of students (alienated group) appeared to become alienated
towards the teacher. The third group of students (swing group)
appeared to swing between being cooperative and alienated towards
the teacher. The social groups that developed within the general
science class also appeared to have different relationships with
other students in and outside their own science class. The group
that developed a cooperative relationship with the teacher appeared
to resent what was happening in their class because they felt it
interfered with their learning; thus they did not support the
disruptive students in their class. The alienated group felt that
the students who were always cooperative in class were, in a way,
selling out. They referred to them as goody-two-shoes or preppies.
The swing group appeared sometimes to support the alienated group
and at other times to support the cooperative group. The enriched
science class did not appear to have different social groups within
their class; although, they did seem to view some general science
students as uncooperative and/or not committed to the doing their
work in class.

The teacher perceived the two classes differently, and what
happened in the two classes appeared to supported his beliefs. In
the enriched science class, the students were cooperative and
committed to getting their work done. In the general science class,
some of the students were cooperative and committed to getting their
work done; however, the majority of them appeared at times to be

uncooperative and/or not committed to getting their work done. As a

125

result of what was transpiring in the general science class, the
teacher came up with strategies that he felt would help the
situation in the class. These strategies were academic as well as
classroom-management related. However, these strategies appeared to
have some unintended consequences that contributed to the
development of social groups within the teacher's general science
classroom. In particular they contributed to the spacial separation

and increase in the size of the alienated group.

The Dilemma

From the evidence presented in this chapter, it appeared that
policy makers and teachers felt trapped between two options, both of
which had undesirable consequences. Those two options as perceived
by the teachers and the district policy makers at Loran were: keep
the current the placement policy and have a quality experience in
science for a small, homogeneous group of science students (the
enriched science students), and have teachers do the best they can
with the majority of science students (the general science
students), risking the possibility that the general science students
won't have a quality experience in science because the heterogeneous
make up of the students in general science classes might make it
difficult for teachers to accomplish their goals. Or, abandoned the
placement policy and have teachers do the best they can with the
heterogeneous group of all the science students, risking the
possibility that no science students will have a quality experience

in science because the heterogeneous make up of all the science

126

students might make it difficult for teachers to accomplish their
goals.

Let's look at how this dilemma manifest itself by examining the
situations facing the various participants in relation to the
placement policy at Loran. The participants are: district policy
makers, school administrators, the assigned teacher of enriched and
general science classes, parents of enriched and general science
students, and students placed in either enriched or general science
class.

It was decided by the policy makers that some Loran science
students possessed the potential for handling a more rigorous
workload in science. Therefore, the policy makers decided to create
enriched science classes for these students. The idea was to
provide enrichment activities for the students' assigned to these
classes and that this might further motivate these students in
science. These enrichment activities would be more rigorous than
activities usually presented in general science classes. The policy
makers decided to set up some criteria for selection of science
students into these enriched science classes. The selection
criteria chosen included: (1) having the science students score at
least 90% on the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, (2) having 6th
and 7th grade teachers identify and recommend students who they feel
have a special talent in science, for enriched science classes, and
(3) allowing parents to overrule any decision concerning where their

child is placed.

127

The position taken by the Loran district policy makers [that
justifies the placement policy] was that they apparently believe:
(a) students learn better in groups where students are academically
similar, (b) teaching is easier when students are grouped
homogeneously, (c) the established procedures for identifying
student's placement are both fair and accurate.

As a result, policy makers at Loran instructed administrators
at Loran to place students into either enriched or general science
classes, according to the established placement policy. An
unfortunate realities of the placement policy was that parents of
science students at Loran can have input as to where their child is
placed. However, from the interview I had with the principal of
Loran, Mr. Bird, very few parents exercise that right. Another
unfortunate reality that I found in the placement policy is that
students with a history of being behavioral problems in the
classrooms are placed in general science classes. These students (I
will call henceforth, entering alienated students) are not
recommended by their 6th grade teacher into enriched science
classes, nor do they score in the 90th percentile on standardized
achievement test. Interviews with teachers who had taught general
science classes in the past suggested that it was quite common that
two, three, or sometimes as many as five students with histories of
being behavioral problems in the classroom, would end up being
placed in a general science class.

The situation facing the administrators at Loran is that they

must implement the established placement policy. They must give the

128

Stanford Achievement test to the students, make sure that 6th grade
teachers give them a list of students that they feel should be
placed in enriched science classes, and respond to any request for
placement of their child by parents. The administrators must also
determine which teachers will be chosen to teach the enriched and
general science classes. For that particular year, the teacher
chosen to teach the enriched science classes was the science
department chairman, Mr. Johnson. The administrators expected that
Mr. Johnson would do some enrichment activities with his enriched
classes.

The situation facing Mr. Johnson, having been chosen to teach
the two enriched science classes offered by the school, as well as
two general science classes was how to teach the two types of
science classes, knowing that they would contain different types of
science students in term of academic and behavioral readiness. This
challenge caused him to come up with teaching strategies that he
felt would address the academic and behavioral needs of the students
in the two type of science classes.

The situation for the parents of students chosen for enriched
science classes [was such that they] felt that the placement was
done by reliable means and therefore, viewed the placement of their
child into general science classes as appropriate. Enriched science
students' parents liked the idea that their children were being
placed in science classes that would in some way be enriched. In

fact, when the school considered abandoning the placement practice,

129

many parents of enriched science students lobbied district policy
makers to insure that the placement practice continued.

The situation for the parents of students chosen for general
science classes either: (a) did not know that there were two types
of science classes (enriched and general), because nothing was sent
out by the school informing them about it (and did not know the
method of placement}, (b) knew that there were two types of science
classes (enriched and general), yet felt that the placement was done
by reliable means, and, therefore, viewed the placement of their
child into general science classes as appropriate, or, (c) knew that
there were two types of science classes (enriched and general), but
felt that the placement was done by unreliable means, and,
therefore, felt the placement of their child into general science
class was just another policy that exemplifies how the system is
unfair.

The perception for the students chosen for enriched science
classes was that they were placed in an enriched science class
because they either scored 901 or better on the Stanford Achievement
test and/or were recommended by their 6th grade teacher (parent
recommendations into these classes are rare). Mr. Johnson's
strategies for addressing the academic and behavioral needed of
enriched science students revolved around the make-up of these
students and how he perceived their abilities (a homogeneous group
of academically motivated and cooperative students). This resulted
in Mr. Johnson giving enriched science students more time to develop

academic skills, such as outlining skills. He also gave them more

130

opportunities to participate in hand—on activities, such as the leaf
collection project. Additionally, because of their cooperative
behavior, enriched science students received more opportunities go
places were the teacher could be seen in a different light, such as
the science camp.

The perception for the students chosen for general science
classes was that they were placed in a general science class because
they either did not score 902 or better on the Stanford Achievement
test and/or did not get recommended by their 6th grade science
teacher (parent recommendations into these classes are also rare).
Mr. Johnson's strategy for addressing the academic and behavioral
needs of general science students again revolved around the make-up
of these students and how he perceived their abilities (a group of
students with different levels of academic and behavioral skills).
This resulted in Mr. Johnson giving general science students fewer
opportunities to develop academic skills because he felt he needed
to spend more time on behavioral skills. Those academic skills that
were developed were many times oversimplified, such as the skill of
outlining a chapter. Mr. Johnson also gave general science students
fewer opportunities to participate in hand-on activities because Mr.
Johnson felt that many of the general science students couldn't
handle the task academically or wouldn't want to do the task even if
given the opportunity, such as the leaf collection project.

And, in an attempt to combat behavioral problems in classrooms
and on field trips, the school district come up with a strategy that

prohibited students, who received 4's and 5's in citizenship from

131

any class, from going on field trips. This had an effect on a large
number of general science students because of their uncooperative
behavior, including students in Mr. Johnson's general science class.
Thus, many general science students received fewer opportunities to
go places where the teacher could be seen in a different light, such
as the science camp.

These strategies for addressing the academic and behavioral
needed of enriched and general science students contributed to
general science classes becoming somewhat impoverished when compared
to enriched science classes.

Now that we have examined the situations facing the various
participants as a result of the placement policy in place at this
school, what can be said about the dilemma facing the policy makers
and the teacher?

When the placement policy was instituted, teachers of enriched
science classes expressed that it was nice having a homogeneous
group of academically motivated and cooperative science students.

On the other hand, many teachers of general science classes
expressed that the placement policy took out the best students,
leaving their general science classes with poor role models.

On the hand, throughout the United States cries from some civil
rights leaders and politicians have argued that practices such as
the Loran placement practice, are just another form of tracking
students into high or low ability groups. In interviews with some
parents I obtained comments from parents expressing their belief

that the Loran placement policy was merely just another form of

132

tracking students that shows that the system is unfair. The
perceived dilemma for the district policy makers heighten when they
voiced their consideration in abandoning the placement practice.
Upon hearing this consideration, many parents of enriched science
students demanded that the policy makers continue the placement
practice. Some of these parents went so far as to apply pressure,
through lobbying the policy makers, to ensure that the placement
practice continued. These parents of enriched science students
voiced their belief that, if their children didn't have a separate
experience with other highly academically motivated and cooperative
students, then, their children would not have the quality education
in science that they deserve.

Parents of general science students, to my knowledge, never
voiced their belief to the policy makers that their children were
not getting the quality education in science that they deserve
because their children were not getting the same kind of enrichment
activities. However, in conversations with me that feeling was
expressed by some parents of general science students.

So, the perceived dilemma for district policy makers became,
keep the placement policy and have a quality experience in science
for a small, homogeneous group of science students (the enriched
science students) and do the best you can with the majority of
science students (the general science students) but risk the
possibility that the general science students won't have a quality
experience in science because the heterogeneous make up of the

students in general science classes (especially the two or three

133

entering alienated science students) might make it difficult for
teachers to accomplish. [However, you quiet the most vocal group of
parents.] Or, abandon the placement policy and do the best you can
with the heterogeneous group of all the science students and risk
the possibility that no science students will have a quality
experience in science because the heterogeneous make up of all the
science students (especially the two or three entering alienated
science students) might make it difficult for teachers to
accomplish. [However, you now have a vocal group of parents
lobbying against your decision.] Confronted with this dilemma, the
policy makers chose to keep the placement practice.

The perceived dilemma facing the teacher became, if you try to
do the same enrichment activities that you do in the enriched
science classes, in the general science classes, then problems
created by the placement policy, in terms of the make up of the
general science students, creates management problems for the
teacher. At the same time, if you don't do the same enrichment
activities in general science classes that you do in enriched
science classes, then you leave the most needy students with a
possible impoverished educational experience.

There is little doubt that Mr. Johnson would have wished that
the make up of the students in his general science class were more
like his enriched science class, [mostly a homogeneous group of
cooperative, academically motivated students]. Then he could have
provided enrichment activities for both types of classes [enriched

and general]. However, the school's placement policy made that an

134

impossible reality. Instead, the heterogeneous make up of the
students in Mr. Johnson's general science class, in regard to
academic capabilities and behavioral skills, resulted in the
development of social groups (academically motivated group,
alienated group, and swing group) within his general science
classroom itself. The development of these social groups became
problematical for Mr. Johnson. It appeared that the two or three
(entering alienated) general science students capitalized on the
dynamics of the situation by inciting other students (swing group)
into disruptive behavior, thus contributing to increasing the size
of the alienated group as the school year progressed. In addition,
the classroom management strategy of the teacher (changing seating
arrangements), only reinforced the formation of a larger and larger
disruptive group of students (alienated group).

Thus, the choice for the teacher seem to be, try to do the same
enrichment activities that you would in enriched science classes, in
general science classes and put up with the management problems
caused by entering alienated students in general science classes,
or, only do the enrichment activities in the enriched classes and
leave the general science students with a possible impoverished
education experience, however, you won't have to put up with the
additional management problems that might arise. Mr. Johnson

apparently chose the latter.

CHAPTER V

A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETATION:
SOCIAL BONDING THEORY

I would like to begin this chapter by admitting that I
struggled with choosing the appropriate frameworks to use to help me
interpret my data. At first I thought about using a Marxist point
of view because the analysis of how schools contribute to the social
reproduction of an unequal society has fascinated me, and upon
analysis of my data I found many parallels. I also thought about
using the literature on teacher's expectations because, again, upon
analysis of my data I found many parallels. While I feel that both
of these frameworks might have been appropriate and useful, they
didn't appear to highlight the central focus of what I saw happening
in the two classes.

I selected social bonding theory because it was particularly
appropriate for capturing and illuminating what I understood was
going on in these two classes. A gulf appeared to develop between
the teacher and the students in the general science class. In the
enriched science class, the teacher and the students appeared to
work together and developed a good relationship. Social bonding
theory provided me with a language that I could use to talk about

these phenomenons that I saw. Furthermore, the idea of a social

135

136

bond and its elements were suggestive of the mechanism that took
place in these classrooms, and that mechanism made sense with my
analysis, fitting the picture that I was trying to paint. In that
sense, it helped me show how these processes came about, not merely
that they came about. This model also led me to look further at
things that the model pointed to. While it might be true that
social reproduction and teacher's expectation were part of what was
happening in this setting, they didn't address the central focus as
well as social bonding theory.

Since the idea of a social bond is pivotal to the conception of
youth conformity and deviance, let us begin by examining what a
social bond is in Hirschi's (1969) context. According to Hirschi a
social bond is both a psychological (perception or attitude) and a
social condition (situation). For example, the perception that it
is possible to do well in science class is a psychological factor,
while the situation of being regarded or treated well by a science
teacher is a social one. Social bonds are associated with social
settings and persons in them and can be established and maintained
through interaction with others. Hirschi warns that it would be an
error to regard the bond as something that can be internalized in
the child once and for all. Since social bonds are founded in the
situation, they are changeable with the situation.

In Hirschi's view, most young people generally honor rules,
broadly defined, because they have formed social bonds with
conventional persons (e.g., teachers) in the course of conventional

activities. Social bonds are sustained by an ongoing realization of

137

various values or goods that can be obtained from human interaction,
such as excitement, acceptance, competence, or fairness. Thus, it
is inferred that things like "opportunities, skills, and reward"
might promote bonding and thus promote order in the classroom.

With this in mind, the following model was developed from a
multi-year study by Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985). Using
that model, the conclusion depicted in (Appendix K) was reached.

What the researchers concluded was that after taking into
account their subjects' initial rates of delinquent behavior, the
strain between aspirations and opportunities, lack of opportunity,
inadequate socialization, and social disorganization all contribute
to weak conventional bonding between children and their families and
schools. Those weak conventional bonds, along with lack of
opportunities and social disorganization, free youth for
participation in peer relations, strong bonding to delinquent peers,
that support delinquent behavior.

Relying on re-analyses of several studies of delinquency, Weis
and Hawkins (1981) constructed a similar synthesis of theories to
support the derivation of strategies for preventing juvenile
delinquency (also see Hawkins & Weis, 1985) (Appendix L).

These researchers argued that when children are provided
opportunities for conventional activities, are enabled to attain the
skills needed to take advantage of those opportunities, and receive
rewards for their participation, they tend to become involved in
conventional pursuits, e.g., school activities. From those

involvements, they form a belief in moral order in which they

138

participate, become committed to continuing involvement in
conventional pursuits, and form attachments to conventional persons,
e.g., parents and teacher. Those social bonds provide them a stake
in conformity that discourages both delinquent behavior and the
involvements with peer groups that might support such behavior.

In the next chapter I will use the social bonding models
presented here (Appendix K and L), as a theoretical perspective that
helps us get further insights into what I saw happening in Mr.
Johnson's science classes in terms of the social bonding processes

that took place.

CHAPTER VI

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY, SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE
erview o the tud

This was a case study of science teaching at the seventh—grade
level in an urban middle school. The seventh-grade students in this
school are classified and placed into either enriched or general
science classes. The students are classified according to their
performance on a standardized reading achievement test, teacher
recommendations, and/or parental choice.

This case study of an enriched and a general science class
taught by the same teacher at this school described the differential
treatment of the two classes. In particular it described the
consequences enriched and general science placement have on the
students and their educators and how the culture created by the
students interacts with the placement practices to create unintended
consequences. Classroom observations, formal and informal
interviews, and surveys, were used to obtain data about the nature
of the academic work done by the students, as well as the
development of the classroom atmosphere and student attitudes in the

two classes.

139

140

Summafy of the Findings

This study revealed two very different worlds of science
instruction for students placed into enriched and general science
classes. These differences appeared to be related to perceptions
shared by students, teachers, and administrators. The teachers and
administrators, as well as the students themselves, perceived the
enriched science class to be ”special," containing students with
similar high academic skills. This perception of the enriched
science students being special, coupled with their cooperative
behavior and the quality of their class work, led to the teacher and
the school giving them more nurturing, autonomy, freedom, and
opportunities for participation in interesting and challenging
activities than were given to general science students. For their
participation in their science class, enriched science students
received rewards such as high grades, praise from adults in their
environment, and increased opportunities for social interaction with
their peers during class time. As the year progressed, the enriched
science classroom's atmosphere became even more nurturing and the
enriched science students became even more involved in their science
class. At the end of the academic school year, the enriched science
students possessed more positive attitudes towards their science
class, more positive feelings toward their science teacher, and more
positive concepts of themselves as science learners.

Furthermore, at least some of the teachers and administrators,
as well as many of the students themselves, perceived the general

science class to be "average" or "less than average,” containing

141

students with average or less than average academic and social
skills which many times led to uncooperative behavior in the
classroom.

Even though much of the academic work assigned to the general
class was quite similar to the academic work assigned to the
enriched science class, these perceptions held. These perceptions,
the quality of their class work, and the uncooperative behavior of
some of the general science students led to the teacher and the
school giving them far less nurturing, autonomy, and freedom, and
fewer opportunities for participation in interesting and challenging
activities than were given to the enriched science students. For
their participation in their science class, many general science
students received average or below average grades, little or no
praise from adults in their environment, and few opportunities for
social interaction with their peers during class time. As the year
progressed for the students in the general science, the classroom's
atmosphere became more tense and confrontational and the majority of
general science students became uninvolved in their science class.
At the end of the academic school year, the general science students
possessed substantially less positive attitudes towards their
science class, substantially less positive feelings towards their
science teacher, and substantially less positive concepts of
themselves as science learners.

These findings are consistent with the findings of other major
studies examining placement policies. Studies done by Oakes (1985)

and Goodlad (1983) also found that there are clear differences

142

between upper and lower placement in regard to the content and
quality of instruction, teacher-student and student-student
relationships, perceptions held by teachers of their students, and
the affective climate of classrooms. However, this study went
beyond these findings in important ways.

One additional finding was that the social structure created by
the students themselves interacted with the school's placement
structure in ways that further alienated the majority of general
students. Peer group membership formed a substructure within the
general science class which influenced the students' goals,
perceptions, and behavior. One group (mostly black students) became
increasingly alienated and uninvolved academically over the course
of the year. Another group, although academically engaged, became
resentful of their placement in the general science class. A third
group tended to swing back and forth, depending upon the nature of
the work and the social dynamics at the time. This social
structure, created by the students themselves, tended to reinforce
the separation that the school's placement policy created.

Another finding of this study was the dilemma arising for
policy makers and teachers. The perceived dilemma is represented by
a trade off between providing a high quality experience in science
for a small, select, homogeneous subset of students (i.e. exposure
to enriched activities) with the remaining students receiving a
marginal (in terms of exposure to enriched activities) experience in
science, on the one hand, verses a situation in which all efforts

would be made to provide all of the students with an equal exposure

143

to enriched activities, but risk that all of the students might end
up receiving only a marginal experience in science because of the
heterogeneity of the students. Policy makers and teachers appeared
trapped between these two options, both of which had undesirable
consequences.

In the next section, I will use a theoretical perspective that
helps us get further insights into what might be done to resolve

this perceived dilemma.

Interpretation in Terms of Social Bonding Theory

In this section I will use the social bonding models presented
in Chapter V (Appendix K and L). These models provides a language
that helps explain what I saw happening in Mr. Johnson's science
classes in terms of the social bonding processes that took place.

Let's consider the probable situation on the first few days of
class in Mr. Johnson's two science classes. One might speculate
that the majority of enriched science students, having been
successful in science in the past, came into the class with a
history of good relations with science teachers and with positive
feelings about their ability to do science class work. In terms of
the model we could say that the enriched science students came into.
Mr. Johnson's science classroom with some prior bonding with science
and with science teachers which provided a basis for further
bonding.

On the other hand, one might speculate that this was less true

for the majority of the general science students. They had probably

144

not been as successful in science in the past. Furthermore, some of
them also came into the class with a history of poor relations with
teachers and with some negative feelings about their ability to do
science class work. In terms of the model we could say that the
general science students came into Mr. Johnson's science classroom
with less bonding with science and science teachers and less of a
basis for developing further bonding.

I don't want to imply that there was a clear cut distinction
between the types of students found in the two classes. On the
contrary, it is very likely that one would find some students with
either of these characteristics in both classes. The point is that
the majority of the students in these classes probably fall into
these two categories.

During the first few days of class Mr. Johnson made the
following statement to me about his third hour enriched science
class: ”My third-hour enriched science class is made up of students
who are among the best in the school. Now my fourth-hour general
science class; they're a different story. Many of them can't read."
From that statement and from other observational evidence, I
inferred that the enriched science class was perceived by its
teacher as containing students who were more capable of learning
science and taking responsibility. As a result of this perception,
the teacher allowed the enriched students the opportunity to
participate more in conventional (hands-on) activities that were
engaging, interesting, and meaningful, and that required a certain

degree of self discipline because he felt that the majority of

145

enriched science students had the self discipline, academic
capabilities, and the desire to participate in such stringent
projects (the leaf collection project is an example of such a
conventional activity).

If we add the teacher's perception of the enriched science
students to the probable situation the enriched science students
were in prior to their entering the classroom, in light of the model
(Appendix L), this could be seen as the basis for the development of
further social bonding with their science class.

Generally speaking this is what I observed. As the school year
progressed, enriched science students appeared to work diligently on
conventional activities such as their leaf collection project,
showing the teacher that they were willing to cooperate with the
stringent demands that he had set. For example, on many occasions I
observed the enriched science students bringing leaves that they had
found to class to identify. They matched up the characteristics of
the leaves with keys in their book. Once they did that, they tried
to identify each leaf. The teacher, possibly noticing the enriched
science students' enthusiasm and cooperation, put forth the time and
energy necessary for the students to acquire the skills needed to
complete the project and, from what I could tell, did so with good
humor. For example, the teacher brought in special books that
helped the students identify more difficult leaves, and he made
himself available to the students for guidance.

The students appeared to respond by showing even more

enthusiasm, hard work, and commitment to the task. Finally, the

146

students acquired all the necessary skills to complete their
projects.

They learned how to recognize certain families of leaves, and
how to mount and label the leaves in their books; They also learned
the scientific terminology used by horticulturists when naming
leaves. The rewards they received were high grades from their
teacher and praise from those in their environment.

As can be seen, the students in the enriched science class were
provided with an opportunity for participation in a conventional
(socially approved) activity, e.g., the leaf collection project.
During the course of this activity, the enriched students acquired
skills (how to mount, observe, analyze, classify, and categorize
leaves) necessary to take advantage of the opportunity provided. As
a reward for their participation in this conventional activity, the
enriched science students received good grades and praise for their
accomplishment.

In the social bonding model presented in chapter 5, these
elements (opportunities, skills, rewards) all contribute to forming
a tendency to become involved in conventional pursuits, in this case
their science class. From those involvements, the enriched science
students became more committed to continuing involvement in
conventional pursuits, e.g., doing other work in their science class
and, thus, they formed attachments (social bonds) to conventional
persons, in this case their science teacher and other cooperating
students. One might also speculate that the enriched science

students formed a belief in the moral order in which they

147

participated, e.g., the belief that the science teacher or school
was just. These strong conventional bonds provided the enriched
science students with a basis for further social bonding that
discouraged both disruptive behavior and involvements with peer
groups that might support disruptive behavior.

I will now use the same model to help explain what happened in
Mr. Johnson's general science class. I speculated earlier that the
majority of general science students came into Mr. Johnson's science
class having had less bonding with science and science teachers and
less of a basis for developing further bonding than did the enriched
science students. From statements made by Mr. Johnson such as I
referred to earlier, and from other observational evidence, I
inferred that the general science class was perceived by the teacher
as containing many students who were at times uncooperative,
disruptive, and irresponsible, with limited ability and/or
motivation to learn science. As a result of this perception, the
teacher did not allow the general science students the opportunity
to participate in many conventional (hands-on) activities that were
engaging, more interesting, and meaningful, and that required a
certain degree of self discipline, because he did not feel that the
majority of general science students had the self discipline,
academic capabilities, or the desire to participate in such
stringent projects like the leaf collection project. If we add the
teacher's perceptions of the class to the probable situation the
majority of general science students were in prior to their entering

the classroom, in light of the model (Appendix L), this could be

148

seen a limiting basis for the development of further social bonding
with their science class.

In terms of the social bonding model, the elements needed for
social bonding appeared lacking in this classroom. As compared to
the enriched science class, the general science class presented a
different pattern for opportunity, skills, and rewards.

Generally speaking, the general science class experienced fewer
opportunities to participate in engaging, more interesting and
meaningful activities; less support for gaining skills; and fewer
rewards for gaining skills.

In the social bonding model presented in chapter 5, when these
elements (opportunities, skills, and rewards) are not sufficiently
provided, students do not become involved in conventional pursuits,
in this case, their science class. From the lack of sufficient
involvement in conventional pursuits, many of the general science
students did not become committed to involvement in other
conventional pursuits, e.g., doing other work in their science class
and, thus, formed weak attachments (social bonds) to conventional
persons, in this case their science teacher. One might also
speculate that many of the general science students did not form a
belief in the moral order in which they participated, e.g., they did
not believe that the science teacher or school was just. These weak
conventional bonds freed some of the general science students (the
swing group) to associate with other disruptive students in the

general science class (entering alienated students that usually

149

instigated disruptive behavior); thus, it supported more disruptive
behavior.

In addition, the teacher's perceptions and the behavior of
certain members of the general science class led the teacher to use
certain tactics that further limited the opportunity to promote
bonding with many of the students and increased the opportunity for
certain students to association with disruptive students and to
participate in disruptive behavior.

For example, he gave the general science students tasks that
were not very engaging (such as copying sentences out of their
science books); he physically moved disruptive members of the class
to the back of the room where they had more Opportunities to
interact with other disruptive students (thus helping to create a
larger group of students who were alienated from the class); and he
assigned many students in this class poor citizenship grades that
prevented them from becoming eligible to go to special school events
that might have allowed the students the opportunity to see teachers
in a different light (events such as the science camp).

I have tried to show how the social bonding model helps us
understand and interpret what happened in Mr. Johnson's science
classes in terms of the bonding processes that took place. In
short, as I observed the enriched science class, the development of
social bonding between the enriched science students and the teacher
throughout the school year appeared to grow stronger. As I observed
the general science class throughout the school year, the social

bonding between the general science students and the teacher

150

appeared to grow weaker. Furthermore, a significant number of
general science students appeared to bond more with the small number
of general science students who entered the class already alienated
toward science. This is consistent with what we saw in the social
bonding model and alerts us to the effect that the small number of
entering alienated students has on the tone of the general science
class.

Applying the model (Appendix K) to this situation, the weak
conventional bonding between general science students and their
science class freed some students (swing group) for participation
and subsequent bonding to disruptive peers (entering alienated
students) that supported disruptive behavior.

Perhaps a pictorial representation would be useful here (see
Appendix M, N, and O).

In the first diagram the enriched science class is depicted as
a homogeneous group of academically motivated students that shared
the same goals, perceptions, and behavior patterns. The general
science class is depicted as a heterogeneous group of students, some
of whom were academically motivated, some of whom were not, and some
of whom came into the class already alienated towards science class.
The second diagram shows what happened to the two science classes as
the school year progressed. In the enriched science class things
appeared to stay the same; however in the general science class, the
social structure created by the students themselves appeared to form
three subcultures within the science class, each with different

goals, perceptions, and behavior patterns. One group, the

151

academically motivated group, was academically motivated towards
their science class. Another group, the alienated group, started
out alienated and uninvolved academically towards their science
class and continued that pattern throughout the year. A third
group, the swing group, tended to swing back and forth, (from being
academically motivated to being uninvolved academically) depending
upon the nature of the work and the social dynamics at the time.
The teacher and the students in the academically motivated group
appeared to compete with the students in the alienated group for the
allegiance of the students in the swing group. The result of this
competition was that the alienated group grew larger as members of
the swing group joined them.

If we were to assume that the situation that I have portrayed
here in Mr. Johnson's two science classrooms (enriched and general)
is representative of all the science classrooms at Loran, then the
impact of this phenomena of increasing alienation across eleven out
of thirteen science classes represents a serious problem for a large
majority of science students at Loran.

The third diagram shows the projected picture at Loran, where
there are two enriched science classes and eleven general science
classes. In the enriched science classes, teachers feel that they
can allow the enriched students the opportunity to participate more
in conventional (hands-on) activities that are engaging,
interesting, meaningful, and that require a certain degree of self
discipline. However, the formation of subcultures within the

general science classes creates situations which makes it difficult

152

for teachers to provide such opportunities for general science
students. Here again I draw attention to the effect that the small
number of entering alienated students has on the tone of the general
science class. There is no doubt that this small number of entering
alienated students is making quality science teaching difficult for
the teachers at Loran. It also appears that the school's practice
of ability grouping science students is interacting with the
formation of subcultures within general science classes in ways that
enhances this phenomena and contributes to the creation of more and
more alienated science students.

The findings of this study seem to corroborate the policy
conclusion that ability grouping should end in all U.S. science
classrooms. However, to draw such a conclusion from these findings
would be a mistake. The data presented in this study are not
statistically generalizable; evidence from two science classrooms
cannot be extrapolated to other settings as proof that ability
grouping is bad in general. Even to add the findings together with
other interpretive studies in a sort of meta-analysis is
methodologically unsound.

However, if we were to assume that the situation that I have
portrayed here in Mr. Johnson's two science classrooms (enriched and
general) is representative of many science classrooms in many school
districts where ability grouping is being practiced, then the
results of this study would have important implications. It is up
to the reader to judge the extent of similarity between their

particular context and that of this study.

153

In those cases where there are similarities with the findings
of this study, what recommendations do I have for policy makers
struggling with this problem? In the next section I will present
some recommendations that I feel are relevant to the findings of
this study. The applicability of these recommendations is something
that the reader will also have to judge. These recommendations
however, should not be viewed as suggestions only to teachers, nor
should they be viewed as suggestions only to school districts.

These recommendations should be viewed as additional alternative for
policy makers (State Governors and State Legislatures) to consider
when making decisions about the allocation of resources to

educational programs.

Recommendations

The dilemma as perceived by the teachers and the district
policy makers at Loran suggest two alternatives. On the one hand
the placement policy can be kept, resulting in a quality experience
in science for a small, homogeneous group of science students (the
enriched science students), while teachers do the best they can with
the majority of science students (the general science students),
risking the possibility that the general science students won't have
a quality experience in science because the heterogeneous make up of
the students in general science classes (especially the two or three
entering alienated science students) might make it difficult for
teachers to accomplish their goals. On the other hand, the

placement policy can be abandoned, causing teachers to do the best

154

they can with the heterogeneous group of all the science students,
risking the possibility that no science students will have a quality
experience in science because the heterogeneous make up of all the
science students (especially the small number of entering alienated
science students) might make it difficult for teachers to accomplish
their goals.

From the discussion presented in chapter four, it appeared that
policy makers and teachers felt trapped between these two options,
both of which had undesirable consequences. But were there other
options that they were not considering? Sometimes, the only way out
of a dilemma is to consider new possibilities. One of the ways in
which new possibilities might be considered for this setting would
be to look at a theoretical perspective that might help us get
further insights into what going on in the setting. In the previous
section I describe such a framework. From it I concluded that both
sides of the dilemma that district policy makers had to chose from
seem to be made critical by the impact made by the entering
alienated students. Therefore my recommendations are:

(1) Identify all entering alienated science students

and create an intensive intervention program for
them.

(2) Make the science classes heterogeneous (i.e.

don't ability group the students), but provide
"enrichment” activities for all the science

classes.

(3) Use cooperative learning strategies in all
science classrooms. -

(4) Support teachers in developing and implementing
strategies for improving interpersonal
relationships with all students.

 

155

(1) Identify all entering alienated science students and

create an intensive intervention program for them.

From the evidence presented in this study it appears that
quality science teaching was made difficult because most classroom
science teachers could not accommodate all the needs of the growing
number of entering alienated science students within the framework
of their classrooms. Thus, I argue that it is important to have an
intensive intervention program that addresses this group of
students.

The second argument that I make for having an intensive
intervention program for entering alienated students follows an
argument of justice in Rawls's (1971) sense. Rawls argues that most
of the inequalities in life are the result of the "natural lottery."
For example, you might inherit from your ancestors a set of genes
that give you a greater skill, or you might be born to a family that
has a more positive attitude of what is good for you, or teaches you
good work ethics. Rawls argues that this is not something that you
earn; you don't necessarily deserve it--it's simply the luck if the
draw. Rawls argues that a system that is just should compensate for
the inequalities of the "natural lottery." Therefore, if schools
are going to create special programs for students, the programs
should be geared toward the students who drew the short straws. In
this case it would be the students that come to class already
alienated. This might help foster in these students a belief in the

moral order of the system.

156

(2) Keep the science classes heterogeneous but provide

"enrichment" activities for all the classes.

The idea here is to increase and expand on the number of
conventional (hands-on) activities that are engaging, interesting,
and meaningful to all the science classes so that all the students
have the opportunity to participate in them. This recommendation
goes along with the theory supporting the use of strategies for
promoting social bonding in the classroom. As you recall from the
discussion of the model presented in chapter 5, when teachers
provide students with opportunities to become engaged in activities
that are interesting and relevant to the student; present a
manageable degree of challenge; contain some moderate risk
(possibility of error or failure); provide some freedom of movement
and choice; and supply some knowledge of the results of the
activity. And when students are able to attain the skills needed to
take advantage of those opportunities, and receive rewards for their
participation, they tend to become involved in conventional
pursuits, e.g., school activities. From those involvements, they ’
form a belief in moral order in which they participate, become
committed to continuing involvement in conventional pursuits, and
form attachments to conventional persons, e.g., parents and
teachers. The development of these strong conventional bonds

provided the enriched science students with a basis for further

social bonding that discouraged both disruptive behavior and

 

157

involvements with peer groups that might support disruptive

behavior.

(3) Use cooperative learning strategies in all science

classrooms.

An extremely successful way of conducting instruction with
heterogeneous groups involves the use of cooperative learning.
Cooperative learning uses small heterogeneous groups of students as
learning partners. Students of differing abilities and backgrounds
work together in teams to master curriculum material and receive
recognition as a team for their group's academic performance.
Research has shown that cooperative learning methods are more
effective than traditional ones in increasing student achievement
and in developing mutual concern among students across racial groups
(Slavin, 1982).

Training in basic cooperative skills reinforces students in
helping each other to succeed in classroom endeavors, thus reducing
alienation in the classroom and promoting attachments among students
to accepted academic pursuits. This in turn, reduces the likelihood
that students will form alternative attachments with disruptive
peers which might lead to disruptive behaviors (Hawkins and Weis,
1981).

Cooperative learning may help to prevent disruptive behavior in
two additional ways. Since school achievement is related to

students' perceptions of their own competence and to their

158

commitment to school (Johnson & Johnson, 1980), and both are
associated with rates of delinquent (disruptive) behavior (Hawkins
and Weis, 1981), it appears that cooperative learning may promote
positive school experiences and prevent disruptive behavior by,
helping some students to perceive themselves as academically more
competent, and thus on an equal status with other students, and by
motivating students who have not been achievers to work and
contribute to their teams to the best of their abilities even though
they may continue to view themselves as lesser in ability than other
students.

(4) Support teachers in developing and implementing strategies

for improving interpersonal relationships with all

students:

It occurred to me that if I wanted to create a social bond with
the students in the a class (thus preventing the alienation of a
group of students) I might do some additional things. These things
I feel might help to create inter-personal relationships with
certain members of the class. For example, I might be sure to greet
the students at the door everyday and welcome them to the class,
providing a sense that I was happy they were able to be in my class
today. I might encourage the participation of all students,
especially students that I felt were at-risk, in the lessons,
discussions, and activities. Students whom I found were not

participating as actively as I felt they should or were not

159

understanding the subject matter, would be continuously asked to
participate in conversations with me (either in a small group or
individually) about problems they were having with me or with the
subject matter, or just to talk about things that were important to
them. If parents of these students did not come to parent-teacher
conferences, I might plan visits to their homes to help develop
communication between their parents and myself. In addition,
rationale for any strategies that I was using to get students to
accomplish something I wanted might be continuously explained until
I was sure the strategies and it's purposes were clear to the
students.

I would like to introduce an ihtensive intervention program
that incorporates all of the feature I have recommended for policy
makers to consider when designing a program for heterogeneous groups
of students. This program aimed at entering alienated 9th grade
students is presently being used by a inner city high school in
Charleston, South Carolina. The school is Burke High School. The
intensive intervention program undertaken in collaboration with The
Citadel, a state-supported undergraduate military college with an
extensive graduate program in education, demonstrates an alternative
strategy for addressing the problem of depressed academic
performance in an inner city high school.

This intensive intervention program, entitled Project Challenge
(Mahan & Mahan and Gaillard, 1987) and now receiving some partial
support from the Jessie Ball DuPont Fund, is aimed at showing that a

rigorous academic program could be an effective medium for enhancing

160

achievement at the high school level provided the proper support
mechanisms were included. The list which follows provides a
skeleton format of the issues that need to be addressed in the
design of such a intensive intervention program:

- the classroom must reflect a purpose which is
clear and consistently reinforced by actual
behaviors;

- the problem of alienation must be viewed as a
result of lack of identification with schooling;

- the curriculum must engage students and must be
designed to counterbalance (rather than intensify)
the developmental fragmentation of early
adolescence;

- the program must include the elements of social
capital such as attention, caring, enduring adult
relationship with these students;

- deficits in skills and negative aspects of
self-conception must be addressed with direct
interventions which are supportive and encouraging
in nature;

- the program must have a strong connection to the
parents and communities of these students and to
involve communities;

- the persistent theme must be the students' to
discovery of their abilities and talents along
with the growing awareness of their "control" of
their academic fates;

- learning and the curriculum cannot be separated
from the personal lives and needs of the students
-- indeed, these elements must be intertwined;

- the program must be built upon a team-design with
participation, sharing and joint ownership as a
overriding component;

- differences between students should be
acknowledged, however, instead of interpreting
them as problems that require remediation, they
should be viewed as enrichments that enriches the
lives of all classroom participants;

161

- the program should reflect the uniqueness made
possible by intense college-school collaboration.

Educational Importance

The educational importance of this study is that it illustrates
how the national pattern in which we find only a small percentage of
science students prepared to participate in the new technology is
developing in one middle school. More specifically, it illuminates
how school curriculum and placement policies can interact with
students' social groups and norms in contributing to this trend.

This study makes a contribution to educational research because
it uses interpretive qualitative methods to study a problem that is
typically studied in quantitative methods. It provides for a better
sense of insiders' points of view and their perceptions of their
experiences in science class. Of particular importance is the
procedure in which the target teacher is given the opportunity to
make a substantial contribution to the analyses and actual written
results (see Appendix A). This led to a much fuller and empathic
view of the teacher than would have been likely otherwise.

This study makes a contribution to practice in that it provided
the target teacher with a picture of his practice and its effect on
his students that he might not have otherwise had. An increasing
awareness of the students' perspectives might help him begin to see
new possibilities for the dilemma he had faced. This might help the
target teacher and others reading this study who are in similar

circumstances to reflect on their practice in positive ways.

 

162

Even more important to this are the policy implications that
might arise from this study. Curriculum developers and policy
makers might become better informed about the impact that organizing
science classes into ability groups might cause. It might encourage
them, having seen the differential impacts, to rearrange science
educational opportunities to include a wider range of the students
population. Further, it suggests that attention be given to social
structures within the school and community and that efforts be made
to draw at risk-groups and individuals into academic participation.

I want to acknowledge that what I saw in the general science
class at Loran is not something I saw just because this school
tracks its science students. I suspect that the same social
differentiation of students within science classes would occur even
if the enriched science students were dispersed throughout, and
there were no such thing as enriched and general science classes.
The only difference one might find is that the social groups that
develop might be larger. My point is that the development of social
groups within science classrooms is a common problem. I speculate
that in our educational system, 902 of the time, what I saw in the
general science class is the way it is. Through this study I feel
that I have captured the dynamic of this problem and a theoretical
perspective for thinking about it. This problem is only made worse

by the schools' practice of ability grouping.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

SEATING CHART
LORAN SCHOOL DISTRICT (9/5/89)

WW1

* target students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Door

r‘r'>:c

Door

Period: 3 Subject: Enriched Science Room: 151 Teacher: Mr. Johnson
Rear
Lab Table 6 Lab Table 5 Lab Table 4
Lab Table 1 Lab Table 2 Lab Table 3
W
I
N
D
O
W
8 Lisa Jim Eva Randi Sharon Erint
Nicole Tish Marty* Rita Ray Ned
Angel Leslie Walt Paul Kit David
Theresa* Concetta* Felice Cennen Carly Carrie
Devin Nor-an Debra Egar Ben Shelly
Mr. Johnson's Desk Front

 

 

 

163

 

APPENDIX B

SEATING CHART
LORAN SCHOOL DISTRICT (9/5/89)

WWW

* target students
** students who participate in gun chewing escapade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Period: 4 Subject: General Science Room: 151 Teacher: Mr. Johnson
Rear
Door
Lab table 6 Lab table 5 Lab table 4
Dln*/** Mick** San*/**
Lab table 1 Lab table 2 Lab table 3
W H
I A
N L
D L
0
W
S She11y** Marco Ki-** Isaiah**
Doris Tia Taylor Tish
Karen*/** Jimmy Tyrone Don Ali**
Cindy Arthur Nickie Ron Mary* Cherrie
Terri Tally Steve*/** Bev Jeannie Joan
Door
Mr. Johnson's Desk Front

 

 

 

166

 

APPENDIX E

SEATING CHART
LORAN MIDDLE SCHOOL (5/90)

*1

WWW

* target students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Door

r'r-‘>=n

Door

Period: 3 Subject: Enriched Science Room: 151 Teacher: Mr. Johnson
Rear
Lab Table 6 Lab Table 5 Lab Table 4
Marty*
Lab Table 1 Lab Table 2 Lab Table 3
W
I
N
D
O
W
8 Lisa Jim Eva Randi Erin
Nicole Tish Rita Ray Ned
Angel Leslie Walt Paul Kit David
Theresa* Concetta* Felice Cemmen Carly Carrie
Devin Norman Debra Egar Ben Shelly
Mr. Johnson's Desk] Front

167

. ‘u

APPENDIX D

SEATING CHART
LORAN SCHOOL DISTRICT (1/18/90)

APPENDIX F

SEATING CHART
LORAN MIDDLE SCHOOL (5/90)

 

 

W

* target students
** students who supported Dan in candy dispute

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Door

rm»:

Door

Period: 4 Subject: General Science Room: 151 Teacher: Mr. Johnson
Rear
Karen*/** Cindy**
Lab Table 6 Lab Table 5 Lab Table 4
Mick*/**
Dan* Sam**
Lab Table 1 Lab Table 2 Lab Table 3
W
I
N
D
O
W
S Shelly Marco Kim** Isaiah**
Doris Tim Taylor Tish
Jane Jimy Tyrone Don Ali
Arthur Nickie Ron** Mary* Cherrie**
Terri Tammy Steve*/** Bev Jeannie Joan
Mr. Johnson's Desk Front

 

 

 

168

 

APPENDIX C

DAY BY DAY LIST OF ACADEMIC WORK
DONE BY STUDENTS PER CHAPTER

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ - p h n n p n p p p

q a q q u q q 4 q a J a

. . . . _ . . 88.6. . .1. 88...... .

. . . . . . .5 8.58.... . .3...- 8.s..8..88 8..

. . . . . . _ s 8.8.. 8: 88.8-88.8..8. S I...

. . _ 6&6... . _ . .8 8...... 88:88 a... .8388: 8.8. i. e... .28 a.
88.8.... 33.8. 8.88. $8888. 888.39.18.88 3.8.88 8:83 885.8. 88......8. 8.88. 8. 88.8.8. 8.88. . 8.
. . . . . .p . . n u . . .

. _ _ . . . . . . . 888...... 48...

. . . . . 8.... . . . . .38 .8: it .8:

. . . _ . 5.8... . _ 8.8.8.... 8.8... s 3...... 888......

. . 38.. . . .9 8.8.. .8... .88. 88888. ...8 .8: 3...... :8 as...

. . 9.8.8... .26... _ .8888. is. :8. .88. . . 8 8.. 88.5.... .6 88. .8. 8...

:3. .8888. 8.8 8.. {8:26. 8888... .888... .s 8.. 823...... s. 8.88.8. 8.88. 8.88.8. 8.88. e .8
4. . . . . . . . . u . . T

. . . . . _ . :8...- 38... _ .... _

. .8... .88. . . . . . 8.88.888 8.... 48.. .8: . 8.8».

. 8.8. 83.83. 666... . . . 8 8:5... .38.... .s 8...}... 18.5... 2.88 8..
88898. .8888. 83o... .858. 888.... 8. :3. 8:8. 88.28. 8 8:8. 8.88. .8 88. .8. 8 8... n c.
. . . . . . . . . . . u
. . . . . . . . . 88. .~.. .

_ . . _ . . . . _ .3588. 11:8. .

. . . . . . . . .88. 8.8988. 8. .88. .

. . . . 6&6... . . _ 88.6. .88.. 8. 8.8a 8. 8 8.. 5. .888.
888...... 8.888. 8:26. {8:26. 8:8. 8:5... 8.88.8. 8:5... 8.85.8.8. 8.88. 8. 8...... 8. 8:26. u .8
. . . . u . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . 5:888.

. _ . _ . . . . . . . 8.8...

. . _ . _ . . . . . _ . 8 I... a.

. _ . _ _ . . . . 88. . :88...

_ . . . . _ . . .8 8.8... sees... .88.... .93...

_ . . .36... . . . . at! 8. 8.8.88. 4...... 8..

.88 .8. .88 8.. .88 8.. .88 8.. .88 8: .88 8.. .88 8.. use... .6 33.8. 8.8.. 8. 8... 8.8.
.58. 8... .58. 88. Is... 68.. .58. 88. .58. 68.. 8.8. 88. .58. 68.. .86 ‘8: 88. 8 8.. .s 8...... 88.... . 8.

. .1 u u . . . . . J. . u

. . . . . _ . . . . . 8......

. . . . . . _ . . . . . 8.3. .o.

_ .88 a. . . . 8...... _ . . . . 8.8.8 :

.88.. 8:888... 8:3... . . 8.»... . . . _ . a 888.

a .88... 38.... .c. 28.. . . 8.8. . . 38.8. 38.6. . 2:8.8.
8 .888: is. .8... 8. .88... 8...... 88. 58.83882... 8.8.8.. 838.. 8888.68.38.98: 88... 8. 8.5.
e. r. 2. u. .. a. .. .. n. u. .. 8.86.

.886— ..886. .886— ..886. .886. .886. .886. 888.8. .886. .885. .886. 8.8a.

838;.38383883838

169

 

 

 

170

 

 

 

2

2. a. .. o. .. .. n. u. .. .888.

.| . T . . . . . . . w .
. _ . . . . . . 888.. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .88.... 88588.. . .
. . . . . . . .5 8.58... 8 .8 58. . _
_ . _ . . . . .88 8.. 8 8.8.8. 8.. u .8... . .
. _ . _ . . . 8 5.8.. 85.8.... 8...... .888. 8.88.
. . 8... . .5588 8:85.... 8... 8888... 8.8... .8... 8 8... 8. 8....6. .888. 2 8..
. . h .. 4. . u u u . . +
. . . . . . . . 05.8.. . . .
_ . . . . . . . u 8.88. . . .88 5.
. . . . . . . _ 5 8.58.... . . 888.8.
. . .. . _ . _ . 8 5.88.. . . .8. .5.
. . 8... .26... . . . .88.. 85.8... .86 8. .86 8. 3.8.8.
_ . 8. 8.8.. .38.. .3588 8......588 8: .888. 88.... 8888... .8885. 5.... 8...... o 8.
. . . u u w + u . n . w
. . . . _ . . . . . .88.... .
. . . . . 8.8. . . . . 5.8 .8: .
. . . . . 8.8.8. 5.8. . _ .85.... 8 8...... .
_ . . .26... _ .8. ._ 8 8.85.. .885... . .88... 88.86. .
_ . _ $8.. . .888... a 8.8. 8.8 8. .88 8:. 3.8.8. 8 .88. 85.8.
. . 8.888. 8.88.. . 8 8... 8 8... 8. 8...... .5. .88. .88 .5... .88 .5... .8. .88. o .5.
. . . u . w . n u . n .
. . . . . . . . .2... .88 .. . .
_ . . 4.6.8.. . . . . 8.86. 8.8. 5. . 35.8.
. . .8888. 888...... . 8:18.88 8:8. 8.588. 8.88. 82.8.8.8. 8......8. .88 .8: . 8.
. . h u . . . . . . w .
. . .8... . . .8... . . . .... .... _
. . 5...... . . 8.5.8.8. . .8885... .88 8.. _ . .
. as: 68. 5.88. 666... . 8. 88.. . 8.8. .8 5...... 35.8. . .
_ 5 .8; 8.88m Sam .8; 7.8.88 8..“ .8 8._ 8.8.88; .88 .848. 8......8_ 8. 8....._ o 8.
d u u u u u q q a q 1 q
. . . . . . . . . . . 85....
. . . . . . . . . . . 8.... .o.
. . . . . . _ . . . . 8.8.8 ..
. . . . . . . . . . . a 3.8...
. . . . . . . . 58.8. 58.8. . 5:858.
" n . _ . . . 85.8.. 89.888.88.88: 8...... 8. 8.8.
..
.888 8.88 .888 .888 .888. .888 .888 .888 .888 .888 838..

iiogflloiog‘uozitf

171

 

 

 

 

 

- n b n p F p p r
q q u a q u u q d a a
. . . . . _ _ .6332. . _ 3.... 3.... . .
. _ . . . .a.......t.... ...3...!.......I.....3. _ . 3....
n p p b p p n p h P b
a q q d u q q - 1‘ d I. q
. _ _ . . . . . _ .38 I... . _
_ _ . . _ . _ _ _ 3 32...... . _
. . . _ . _ . _ . 3 .23.... .83.... .
_ _ . . . . . _ . 3 2333. .38 .3: .
_ _ . . _ _ _ . _ .3233... 2.3.1.. S 2...... .
_ _ . _ _ _ .3. 223.8. _ 5 3...... 3...... .3 8 3... _ 3 3.
p - — p — p p - p L p p
q q q a — u u a q a J u
_ . .. _ _ . . . .33.... .... S :3... _
. _ _ _ . . _ . c. .33.... _.... 3 .3... _
. . _ . . . . . 3 2....2. . .2... i... _
. _ _ . _ . . . 2.32.... .8. 25...... .
_ . . . _ .0. 3.3.8. _ 2...... .... 3.33. 3.3 3...... _ n. t.
_ _ . . . . . . _ _ 2...... 3......
_ _ . . . . 23...... . .33.... . . .33.... .3. 3...
_ _ _ . _ _ :8. . 3 .3... . 6 3...... S .32.
. _ _ . _ _ .3 1...... 5 :3. .2 I... i. 3...... 2.88.... .... S ..3. 3 3.
TI . J. . .1 . u . . . u .
. . . . . _ . . . . . .3 i :3.
. . . _ . _ . . _ _ . 53......
_ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ c. .33....
_ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . 3 3....2.
_ _ _ . _ . 23.. .. :3. .28.... . .33... i. 2.32....
_ _ _ _ .33.... .3. 333...... 8.32.. . 23.3.... 3.35.. .2... 2.... .32.. : 3..
. . . T w . u . . n ..
_ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . 8......
_ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ 2...... 3.
_ . _ . . . . _ _ . . 3.2.5 ._
. . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . 3......
_ _ . . _ . _ . 32...... 33.5. . 3.36....
_ . . _ . . . 3.32.. 32323333333... 3...... 3. 2.3.
3. 3. 2. a. .. o. n. ._ n. u. ._ 33......
.886 .886 .306 .806 .836 .896 .886. .896 .886 .896 8.3....

il.§3§3.§3....§i§

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

p b b b n F p n p
q u u d a q q u q
. . . . . In. . . . . .
. . _ _ . (.3... . . .6 5 .8. . . n t.
- p p p h b n p p b
u q q u u q q u q u
. . . . . £8... . . _ _ . _
. . . . . 3.... ..... . . .8. .8... . . a...
- p p n p p n p — p
a q - d u q q q d
_ . . _ . . . . 8...... _ .
. _ _ _ .3... 3...... _ _ ... 33.... . .
. . _ . . 5.18.8. . _ 2.3.2.. . . a t.
L P p b p p p p - b
q q q u u u d‘ u u q
. . . . .5... 8...... . . _ _ .
_ _ . . . 5.3.8.3. . .8. 1...: a. . .
. . . . . 23...... _ .3 3.....8. . . 8 .c.
h p n b n p n p n p
q u q u u u u u q u
. . . . . 18.2.... _ .1. 3.....8. . . 2 .8
p n p p n p p n n b
q u q a q u '1 q u u
_ _ . . . _ . . 311...... . .
. . . . _ . . . 8...... . .
. . . . . :3. . . 3.3.0.. . . 2 .8
p p - b p n p n . n n
u q q u q d n 1 q q u
. . . . . 28...... ...o........ $382.... . . 2...
- n . p n n n b p p p
a q q q - q u u q - 4
_ . . . _ _ . . 8...... . .
. _ . . ........ .5... . . 5 8.3.... . .
_ _ . _ . 8...}... a. . . 8 2.8.... _ .
. . . _ .II... .2... _ .8. 22.8.... . .
. . . . . S 8...... . 8:8... .89.... . . 2 .8
p h b h p p p n h - n
q u - - q q q u q u
. . . . _ . . . . _ 8......
. . _ . . . _ . _ . 2.»: .o.
. _ _ . _ . _ . . . 8......5 ..
_ . . _ . _ . _ . . . 3......
. _ . . . _ . 3...... 3...... . 2......8.
. _ _ . _ _ 83.2.. 89.63.8883... 8...... 1.. 9......
a. :. a. ._ .. a. e. a. u. .. 8......

.886 .866 88.6 .886 .886. .886 .886 .886 .896 .886. 8.8....

iliutsiuitfiztatf

 

.032; 0.5 3t oi. 2.... 2:.

 

173

 

 

 

 

S

_ . . . . 8.8.8. . . . . .
. . . . _ 3.... .8. . . . . .
_ . . . .8... .8. . 8.8... _ . . . . .....
. 8... 8...... 5. 88 .. . 2.... 8:. 2.... 8:. _ . . A: 2... .8 I... 882....
. u L. . . . . . u u
. . _ . . . . . . . . .8.
. . . . _ _ . . . 8...... . 88.6
. _ . . . . . . . s 88... . 88...
p p n r b p b p P
d u d u u q q d u
. . _ . . .8._ . . . . . 8 8.
b! h p p n n h n p p
- J u u q q q u q d u
. . _ . . .8. .8... . _ . . . n .8
p h p p p b b p p b b
q I: q q d u a n In a
. . . _ _.... .. .88. . _ . . .
. . . . . 88...... . . . . .
. . _ . . 8. 8:... . . _ . . a .8
r P b h p b F n h p
- u d a q - d u q d
. . _ . . . _ . . _ 3......
. . _ . _ . . . . . 2...... 8.
. . . . _ . . . . . 8.8.8 ._
_ . . . . . _ . . . a 8......
. . . . . . . ..8..... ..8..... . 2.38....
. . . . _ . 83.2.. 89.83.888.25. 8...... 8. 8.8.
a. 8. o. .. o. a. .. a. u. ._ .896.

.896 .896 8.9.0 .896. 8.9.6 .896 .896 .896 .896. It)...

if.§££3.§t.8.§tf

 

APPENDIX B

TABLE OF QUESTIONS REFLECTING
STUDENTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THEIR SCIENCE CLASS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8 $3 $8 .8 $9 $3 $3 $. $2 a m 85.5
A $8 $2 $8 $8 $8 $8 $2 $3 $3 5 .9250
92 z 8.. 82 z 8.. 82 z 3..
8 No 5 a

6...... 3...... be... 3.953 3.5:... 35......

2: ”5.3:... 33.3.... a: 339—.

174

APPENDIX I

TABLE OF QUESTIONS REFLECTING STUDENTS' CONCEPT
OF THEMSELVES AS A SCIENCE LEARNER

 

o\oo o\omN flown .xb o\oo $03 .xb o\oo.. Qoom mm vacatcw

 

 

$5. $3 $5 $5 $5 $5... $5 $5 $8 mm 3.28

 

82 z 8.. 82 z 8.. 82 z 8..
8 mo 6 a

 

 

 

 

.uo:.¢e.
35.3. a 5.. 820582: a: 33:8 35...... 2: 253:9. 23.52:. no 33:.

175

APPENDIX J

QUESTIONNAIRE REFLECTING STUDENTS'
RELATIONSHIP WITH TEACHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o... $. $8 $2 $u $5. $3 $5 $5. 5 5 3.22m
$8 $55 $55 $8 $5. $8 $55 $8 $3 om .9230
82 z 8m 82 z 8n. 82 z 8..

8 «a .0 a

£2.23. a... a...» 5.7.5.229. 52.2.35 2.. 3.23:9. 9:2...3525

176

 

 

APPENDIX K

ELLIOTT, HUIZINGA, AND AGETON'S
SYNTHESIS OF DELINQUENCY THEORIES

,' ! VQ'E {9‘ $18 '1': l! !' 9 ' .' l'“’! '1'..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

   
 
  
 

    

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior #1
Delinquency J
Lack of E
Opportunities I JP
Strong
' Weak Bonding to Delinquent
Inadequate Conventional Delinquent Behavior
Socialization Bonding Peers
Social : I
Disorganizationl

 

177

APPENDIX L

WEIS' AND HAWKINS' SYNTHESIS
OF THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY

 

 

 

Opportunities Belief in the
moral order

 

 

 

 

 

' *+ Conventional .+ Commitment to
Skills Involvement , y-q Conventional
Interaction Activities

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment to ‘
Rewards Conventional

 

 

 

 

 

Persons

Association with
delinquent peers

  
 

 

 

 

Delinquent
Behavior

 

 

 

Opportunities for interaction
with delinquent peers

 
 

 

Opportunities for
delinquent involvement

 

178

 

APPENDIX M

DIAGRAM OF TARGETED ENRICHED AND GENERAL
SCIENCE CLASSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR

820 8:25 3.2.09

820 coco—om 35......—

 

 

 

.o.. 3.8 as. .8338... £8.38

55o...» 088 .3533 .o moo.» Seasons»:

.3; 323m 2.. .o ”5.....qu o... .a 53.0
856m .223". a... 905...... 3.03:... .3 39.2.5

.589...

3.9.8:. $3038 .o 96.» aSoBuoEom

 

179

APPENDIX 0

TARGET TEACHER'S REMARKS

TARGET TEACHER'S REMARKS

I'd like to say at the onset that I've known Keith for at least four years. He
was doing research on classroom interactions and wanted to observe several of my
classes. I mentioned to him that almost all researchers do the research and then we
at the classroom never hear from them again. He kept his word and is therefore
free to come into my classroom anytime he wants.

Keith wrote about the leaf collection and you, gentle reader, may wonder why
I don't have the general science classes do leaf collections. This is why: When I
started teaching, the students here at Loran would do leaf collections and for the
most part do them well. However, about six or eight years ago the students in
general classes simply did not do the work required in a' leaf collection. After two
years with only half of the students in general classes turning in the collections, I
quit giving this assignment to them. The enriched classes, however, still do a leaf
collection for me and usually do a very good job.

Once in awhile, a student or a parent will want to know if the leaf collection
is available for general students. I always tell them they can do it if they want to and
I'll give them full credit. I have had only two students in general science ever do
the leaf collection project. Perhaps the work is too hard or uses too much of their
time.

I'd like to say a few words about the camping experience at Loran. For most of
the youngsters, this is a highlight of their academic year. They get more science in
the week at camp than they do in six weeks at school. Also this is a place where you
can do field activities in the out of doors. If you want to identify trees, birds or
insects, you take your group of youngsters out on one of the trails and do it. The
camp is blessed with a mature beech maple forest, a fen, a prairie that has never
been plowed, a large swampy area, and a small lake (about 12 acres). Over the years
we have been taking students down to the camp, we have made many studies of
these areas. We here at Loran think we have a good program for camp.

We also have taken the students on various trips to nearby areas to do half
day canoe trips and swim in the Great Lakes. In addition, we have done bird
banding at a nearby bird area. The core of teachers that go down to camp are the
ones that will take students on other trips to places like Cedar Point and Boblo
Island. We used to take the ninth grade students on weekend canoe camping trips
on rivers in the upper part of the state. When we changed from a junior high
school to a middle school, the ninth graders left. The eighth graders were not
physically or emotionally ready to go on weekend trips. The camp has once again
allowed us to take our students outdoors to learn and have fun.

One of the problems with the camping program is the cost involved. It

started out at about $35.00 for the week and is now at $55.00 a week. Also, the district
picks up some additional money as other school districts pay about $95.00 for. the

181

 

182

week per student. In general classes, we have more students that are eligible to go
but don't go to camp. One of the reasons may be the cost. If some money was made
available to students in the form of grants or scholarships more of them would go,
I'm sure.

We also have a policy that students with poor citizenship can't go on any
kind of field trip. This is a good policy as students with poor citizenship will destroy
your camping program and you will have many discipline problems very quickly.
The teachers that go down to camp are pretty much agreed that if we were forced to
take students with poor citizenship, we probably would not go.

One of the best things that happens at camp is that students and teachers see
each other in a different light. At school we have to dress properly for class, usually
in a coat and tie, but at camp we dress in jeans and are very casual.

The camp offers a wide range of opportunities for students to observe, classify,
interpret, analyze and think about science in general. I have met quite a few
students after they graduated from high school and to a person they said the number
one best thing about science was the science camp or, going farther back, the
weekend canoe camping trips. They also mention to me that it was good to get away
from the students that caused them problems at school. Youngsters that go to camp
do not have to have good grades but they usually are above average. These students
are picked upon as ”nerds, pets, etc.” when at school. I have seen problem students
destroy the work of hard working students and hit them in the hall and throw
things at them. That is unfortunate but it happens daily in Loran in the classrooms
and in the halls. I have also seen the grades of average students go up after the
camp experience. They seem to have more interest in science after they come back.

I have had parents tell me their youngster now puts in more time on homework
after camp.

This particular way of doing research seems to me to be a very good way. I
like how Keith kept coming back to me to check on this or that about the research.
He really wanted to get the facts straight before he went further. I was very surprised
when he asked me to say a few words to add to his thesis as an appendix. Again,
because he has kept his word to me and to the school and the school district, he is
welcome to come back into my classroom any time he wants.

\

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX P

PROJECTED PICTURE OF ALL SCIENCE CLASSES
AT LORAN AT THE END OF THE YEAR

 

.E...
3.. 8...... 3...... .8... 8...... .88... .3... 8a.... .58.. .

96.9326... 95.8328... 9553259..
95535.2 955...... .3389. Tactic... 955...... 8.6.8.. 956318.... 92o}... 98.5.2

820 8.....m .9350 8:0 coco—om .9850 8:0 85...» .8280 880 coco—um .8280 830 85.8 .8800

.. 9.8. a.
9.80 9.80 vogue... 9.80 9.80 3.8... 9.80 980 El .8... 9.80 9.80 3.8... 9.80 9.80 38...
39...... .53. 2351.”.— Bafi? .3... 23.512 3.8.... 8.... 58.? g 9...... g— —...!u.< 8.... 2.8.5.8..—

.3 8.3.9» 2. coco-om
5. 8...... 3...... .8. 8...... .22.... I. .8 .. :8... 3...... 3......
. ha- 3......”

9.8 .6 999.8... 9.80 9.80 3.8... 9.80 9.80 33...... .o 9.8» .o 9.8.
3.5.... 21.2.33. 33...... 3 233...... .86. a... sales..— —.8.8.8..... 8.8.8....

 

 

APPENDIX Q

GRADES AND ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE STUDENTS
IN GENERAL SCIENCE CLASS

 

 

7

 

7 13:11. I.

 

 

 

 

 

i
Y"’ I-

ll. “ ' -—L
1“-“— llx- Y
r > ' .-‘
5° 4:" I
f' ' " ii.
:u( -3 wig.“

: mla~b~ mind 4 ‘ 3.

.No—qmono$2:mnrz‘?‘nNELt‘FNETti‘nT"

a”? IVES I”

u'd‘uodumcflrfidouugéuq :96 e
. do 510315 [‘3
3%“ ”if ‘" “ 0v“ .4)

<
_ , JAG“ arm-(jib ~me.m.p_~ :rfi 147.1.—
QDg O U entails: 00 ‘90. can») ....S.’.u<

 

 

.ti
H
H

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r I
0 -TV- I "“ _ m’.. r, “.-_ -
d -. . ....i. .. - -_.._.

3:3 K as“? ’f K *r ‘S’S‘ a,- ‘5‘
X “- I ' l
m - . ._ _ ,--. - -. .I. ,.. .. - _ -_L_l_.
* .;_'s‘_\ \ .-.!5t\ \4. , - .4. __N~I :

p 4. you ;.‘§,<Loe Sit-03:: u<¢\ Lupe; 14.9 S I- E at "

. _.._4-_ i.._ ,5 - ....9.
q 3 I ¢(flame ('2 Zcuz X27 ‘0 q (Zara-19 ( "isn't-Ira :9;
g “x ax \ \\:\__q \\ \ \__, .. .§\.\ \ x \ 3.5.2.
’ " 37 ~ \ZZ\ 959.223 Z\ES;2\ Z \ ”ES-A 25.37.3342 32155-13 ass-N7
. a? ““72”? 31......”33 z a Kim «$3159: 31%“. I: “'7‘
‘ a g . \ ”’£""“l>< .1. i—; - .__ -

. gr L 1 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TI
is
z 1935qu .goaooonuzrchq «can; 0 “A“! U ’ +31“ , .
3 ~§$SUV~<UBQJ¢0=E<L<I<\U m5“: 5 $32.? a 5419‘-
i‘ bb'flm '\P"L3.'.Iu\it/K{C‘t;r_>(v{ umgt (LA-‘98:! {.5 saggy/5i
' “5 44 X \4-1 41’ " 4.1 _J
izbuucqzorilu<K<UL4 .t» F~zzz ' *-€."r-< QUTZU 2 «63 .._l7
3 '- dd —1 i - -—l
o 3 ~|~/ . - \ \
2: »- -4 t: .r
2 :5 ~4\ a“ \A
33?“ ~ \ \ \
5 i " ELZN 419$ <3; \u§ <23me .. r-
3 4“ \ 4 .1
it; ~ ‘ h<22 <<< ozfigmz em“ ~ :
:r: 4 A \ 4
at?“ FIN-N tit-HQ QNVUM K ’7‘
3 " 4 4 N-
has.
*Q” '10 Z ' 9+4
N a < Q,\ fig 3 <R§+CM (I
‘E G ‘
Wes we assugnmwrs 4w ’ch 59.4....
: l" +\"'¢- Camera.‘ set-ence class

186,

APPENDIX R

GRADES AND ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE STUDENTS
IN ENRICHED SCIENCE CLASS

_-

4
J

”.- _._._.4_<.

1 ‘I 1’
§ .
1“

LL.-.

504.

u.
h-
i

Io-
i
u

’L
3
.-
1
I;
p.
C
p.
a

'(l. PEI. (1AM '

—————————————
I

4-.-.

MI W W Qifi-M—flfiW-fi EN.

THIRD PERIOD

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lh +ke. enrtckeol smemcc class

18

5

 

 

 

Gradej and asslan m:€m+‘5 Fov ‘an; s+w9~~cvx+s

" <IK<G \< 5‘??- 1 “ ‘.
EFTXi \\ \ \ UR‘MQ :\\\<§\ \QK \\%\\ NI €L331;;‘;=’.;
’ <<<CE§Q2=E mZQQK<C< \QK “ECLZK ((CLIQ 1f (‘Uhf
': ~<R<<<z<<§<<<<<<<<§<<< ri<a<k<<nrfi<n<<<z I a: 04..
I
1%“4‘Q‘Ksfl N<<§<<Y'-'a<<¢u<9<uz<qmui<<e ,m a, - 17
3 ~ X \
z _ \ \
3 h ' \
: z \
8““
§ .-i<<i<flfi<<<<<<<m<<<<<§<<X<K<<C§< aide-”Jo g .- -.
i n
1’3 ~§<©I<W<<<S<<<Vz K<<<<§r<m<<<§<< 44.94“?" s. H '
It :I“ A- A _ ‘ \ ._.. ..
sf - .x \ ><\ § \
u g
*3* k 0'1: <<flF§ <74”"<L" 1’3" ”"7
Hqsi%fl<q‘<<§<”<‘ g $§ _ <\\x <<L<, “£745! 1: 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barker, L. & Joan, C. (1970). Streaming in the primary school.

London: National Foundation for Education Research.

Bird. T. (1989). e o e ° c ectic
221W- Unpublished

doctoral disseration, Stanford University.

Byers, L. (1961). Ability grouping--help or hindrance to social
and emotional growth. fighggl_fig21gx, £2: 449-59.

Cicourel, A.V. & Ketsuse, J.I. (1963). ca a e
makgzg. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Cowles, H. (1963). com at v tud certa socia and
e o ent 0 ho o eneo d ete o eneo s

grouped sigtb grade children. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Alabama.

Dewey, J. (1938). e e on. New Ybrk: Macmillan.
Drews, E.M. (1963). t r and
c o o . Cooperative Research Program, Office of
Education.
Dunn, E.M. (1963). de b I ou atte s a d
ss te . Cooperative Research Program, Office of
Education.

Dunn, L.C. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is
much of it justifiable? Ezggptign§1_§hilg;§g, 1;, 5-22.

Elliot, D.S., Ageton, S.S., & Huizinga, D. (1987). Self-reported
Was- Boulder.

CO: Behavioral Research Institute, (Report No.8).

Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, 8.8. (1982). Explaining
delingggn§1_gng_dzug_g§g. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Everhart, R.B. (1983). Reading, Exiting and resistance. Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

186

 

187

Finley, Merrilee (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive

high school. fipciplogy pf Edugptipp 21, 233-243.

Findley, W. & Bryan, M. (1975). e as cons o abilit
ggpppipg. Washington, D.C.: NEA.
Findley, W. & Bruan, H. (1971b). Abilipy grouping; 19ZO--ii, The
W
ve o e ra d o eco omic se ara o .
Ed 048382.,
Flowers, C.H. (1966). ec o a r acceler ted rou
lacement the tes ed cadem ac evement o educationall
disadvantaged studgppg. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Columbia University.

Goodland, J.I. (1983). A piace paiieg school. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Goodland, J.I. (1960). Classroom organization. In Chester W.

Harris (Ed.). Encyclopedia pf gducgpippai pesearch, (3rd ed.,
pp. 221-25), New York: Macmillan.

Hargreaves, D.H. (1967). e ns a eco a school.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Hawkes, T.H. & Furst, N.F. (1971). Race, socioeconomic situation,
achievement, IQ and teacher ratings of student behavior as
factors relating to anxiety in upper elementary school

children. 529W. 9.1:: 333-350.

Hawkins, J.D., Doueck, H.J., & Lishner, D.H. (1988). Changing
teaching practices in mainstream classes to improve bonding and
behavior of low achievers. d a esea

Ml. 2.2(1): 31-50.

Hawkins, J.D., & Weis, J.G. (1985). The social development model:
An integrated approach to delinquency prevention." lpppppi_p§
Pripapy Epgveptiop, 6: 73-97.

Hirschi, T. 9gp§g§_pf_ggiipgpgppyi Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1969.

Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In Michael F.D. Young

(Ed.) W (PP- 133-160) London: Collier
Macmillan.

Kelly, D.H. (1975). Tracking and its impact upon self-esteem--a
neglected dimension. Educapipp, 26: 2-9.

 

188

Labov, W. (1973). The logic of nonstandard English. In Neil
Keddie (Ed.). e Cu u e ivat o . (pp. 21-66)
Marmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Lennards, J.L. (1969). Ihe se espngsgy school system in she

e e 3' om e u ce st eami
Levenson, S. (1972). e a i udes and ee 3 of selected 3 xth
de ch en towa eadi b rou s. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, United States International University.

Mahan, Mahan, and Gaillard (1987). me e n e cit hi h
sshppl. Unpublished manuscript.

Mann, M. (1960). What does ability grouping do to the
self-concept? MW. 16: 356-60.

McDermott, R.P. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning

in schools. WM. 12. 198-213.
Metro. Mary (1978). Wu. Berkeley. CA:

University of California Press.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. The first, second,
third, fourth, and fifth assessment of science. (1969),
(1973), (1977), (1981), and (1985).

Oakes, J. (1985). e n t . New York: Library of Congress.

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1988.

Olivarri. M.C. (1969). MW

e e - . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.

Page, R. (1988). ea e ' e e t o studentS' ink
W. U
356393.

Persell, C.H. (1977). a ° a d

ir es . New York: Free Press.

Pidgeon. 13.9.. (1970). W. National

Foundation for Educational Research.

Rawles (1971). W.

Rosenbaum, J.E. (1980). Track misperceptions and frustrated

college Plen8- W. 5.3. 74-88.

189

Roth, D.R. (1974). Intelligence testing as a social activity. In

Aaro V. Cicourel et al. (Eds.). Lsngpage use snd school
pepfpppanse (pp. 143-217) New York: Academic Press.

Samuda, R.J. (1975). Psychologicsl testing of American minorities.
New York: Dodd Mead.

Schrank, W. (1970). A further study of the labeling effects of
ability grouping. J2srna1_2£_Edsss;ional_ne§eareh. 63.

358-360.

Schwartz, F. (1981). Supporting or subverting learning: Peer
group patterns. Apphpopplpgy 53s Educstiop Qpapteply, lg,
99-121.

Thomas, A. 6 et a1. (1973). Examiner effect in IQ testing of
Puerto Rican working-class children. In Erwin Flaxman (Ed.).

Ed22arinz_£be_dissdzaa§ssed (PP- 361-374) New York: AMS Press.
Weis, J.G. (1981). ee u c e n ue c ' n evalu ti
e c P t 1. Washington, D.C.:

National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Weis, J. G. , & Hawkins, J. D. (1982). v de c
National Institute Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilcox, J. (1963). s h mu e ou i
d v i .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Williams, T. (1975). es th nhe ta 0
ipsgpslipy. Paper presented at a the annual conference of the
American Sociological Association.